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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
You can listen to the show (for the next 2 weeks) here
Bravery, Kindness, Clarity, Honesty, Compassion, Generosity
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
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
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.
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!
Ideally, I'd like to see a new internet currency standard develop-- one which is international, untaxable and untraceable.
Would bring whole new meaning to "Shave and a haircut, six bits"
_________
Sometimes, when I'm feelin' bored, I like to take a necrotic equine and assault it physically.
The message US tax policy is sending is that work should be discouraged, and consumption, especially via the internet, should be encouraged.
-jwb
Why not just have a flat tax?
One reason to have sales tax, is to give states money (other than state income tax) Right now our federal gov't uses tax money (such as for roads) as a tether to force states to pass laws. Is this really a good thing? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Still trying to figure out why the gov't wants 33%, but God only wants 10%
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?
well sleazy politician is redundant, but McCain is one of the better ones, IMO.
I make my living in the wireless telco world, and McCain seems to be pretty clueful when it comes to whapping the FCC when they stray.
Plus, he's a Vietnam-era pilot/POW. Just from the bio I've seen on Discovery channel, this guy has a lot going for him. He has a pretty no horse-shit attitude that I find refreshing in national politics.
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
When God needs a toilet for His people, He knows how to buy it wholesale.
--The basis of all love is respect
> If we then invest the money, we're taxed on it (but mainly the interest, that, at least is "new" income), then
> when we leave it to someone, there is an estate tax levied.
Two minor nitpicks: first, estate taxes only apply for inheritances over $600,000 (sliding upwards due to the taxpayer reform act of 1997 over the next several years) and does not include the benefits from life insurance policies under certain circumstances, depending who is the owner, insured, and beneficiary of the policy.
Secondly, there are a great many investment vehicles that are created to minimize tax -- of course, they don't exactly maximize return, but you have to trade the one for the other. If money has been taxed once, it will not be taxed again, unless your financial planner or accountant is just Really Damn Dumb.
Disclaimer: I do work for a financial-services company and I am a licensed insurance representative (though currently non-selling), but I've forgotten a bunch of my training and don't pretend to be 100% accurate.
You missed a few of the more sneaky taxes:
...
You get taxed indirectly when you buy something made in the U.S.A. because the corporate tax load is passed on (obviously) to the end consumer.
Inflating the money supply (inflation) is essentially a tax on the money supply. Your share of the "inflation tax" is proportional to the share of the money supply you hold.
Your pay a tax on real property you own. If you rent, of course, the tax is passed on to you, as in the example above. Does this mean we don't actually own real property but instead rent it from the government?
I'm sure we missed a few
I remember a tax scheme in New York back in the BBS days where you would be taxed based on the "value" of shareware you downloaded(!) It was a sales tax on bits, essentially, with the value being purely arbitrary. Scary. It got flamed so badly it went away in record time.
Geeky modern art T-shirts
!WARNING -- RANT!
Did you listen to the same interview as I did?
He is the only candidate to give direct and
thoughtful answers to every meaningful question I
have heard asked of him. He admits his mistakes,
and bases his acts on convictions and logic rather
than popular polling. He is the diametrical
opposite of the Bush/Gore collective, and most
importantly, he is a honorable man in a system
where there are few.
If you want someone to do something about the
rampant pollitcal corruption, vote for McCain. If
you want someone to keep the internet (and
country) free of idiotic laws that protect law
enforcement and steal our rights, vote McCain.
If you want a president who doesn't change
oppinion based on wind velocity, and doesn't
ignore his concious just to get votes, vote for
McCain.
On the other hand, if you want to have dauntingly
idiotic laws imposed on your freedom, vote for the
Bush/Gore collective. (It doesn't matter which
one, as they are the same.)
I am sorry to rant about this, but I urge all of
you to take a look at McCain.
You won't agree with all his views (I know I
don't), but that is not the point. He possesses
the two qualities that have been missing in the
Oval Office for many years: Hardened Integrity,
and a sence of constitutional duty. (IE, he is
not out just to be popular, and he doesn;t view
the constitution as an annoying obstacle.)
Now I must stop before my enthusiasm gets the best
of me. (Yes, real enthusiasm for a Presidential
candidiate. I haven;t felt that in a LONG time.)
"Life is life." --Laibach
I just want to make sure that we are on the same page. You want the riders of public transit to pay their fair share. That seems reasonable. No public transit system in the US makes an operating profit. They are all subsidized by the taxpayer in some way or another. I agree with you that the transit user should pay their share.
It follows from your philosophy that car drivers should pay their fair share, also. The fair share should include:
All in all I think this is a great idea. Car drivers should pay their fair share, as should public transit riders. And my tax money shouldn't go to subsidize either one of them.
-jwb
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.
Gasoline taxes don't cover the cost it takes to keep the roads in good condition, (especially here in Minnesota). You driving you car on public roads are highly subsidized - why shouldn't public transportation be also?
The better the public transportation system, the more people use it. The more people use it, the more efficient it is. And it cuts down on other costs as well.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!