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.
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.
--
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!
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