Internet Tax Imminent? 505
jhigh writes "Proposals to tax the Internet are gaining steam as state legislators see a giant pot of money just waiting to be dipped into. "At the moment, states and municipalities are frequently barred by federal law from collecting both access and sales taxes. But they're hoping that their new lobbying effort, coordinated by groups including the National Governors Association, will pay off by permitting them to collect billions of dollars in new revenue by next year.""
Where have I seen this before? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still, I think that an internet tax is a pretty stupid idea; it'll make municipal wifi harder to do because the taxes would have to be added to the general burden, which people wouldn't like. Not to mention that it'll disproportionately hit the poorer members of society (in proportion of income terms), which makes the tax seem pretty unjust... Although it will give your congress a good opportunity to draw in billions extra which will almost c
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:5, Insightful)
Same great article, now less filling!
But seriously, we can laugh now, but I wouldn't put this past our government. They've passed worse (DMCA anyone?) The Internet needs to be kept free and international - belonging to no single nation. And that means no nation should be able to tax it.
Re:Where have I seen this before? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be CmdrTaco. And from the department line (from the everybody-freak-out-like-the-last-fifty-times dept.), it would appear that he knows it's a dupe... : p
Re: (Score:2)
No Surprise. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Very upsetting to say the least.
Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell do you tax email? What if you run your own server?
Step 1. Understand technology
Step 2. Legislate it
Step 3. Represent your constituents.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But frankly on both sides of the borders I think our politicians were bought and sold long ago. In the states, they bow out to SIGs, whereas in Canada they fight each other for scraps from the public coffers. Both really pathetic.
And sadly, at least in Canada it doesn't seem to matter who you vote for. As soon as they hit the house it's just non-stop pointless partisan bicke
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
Reagan, Remarks to the White House Conference on Small Business, August 15, 1986
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't like they pay their staff anything. Most tell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the ATM owner; profit.
For your bank: profit.
Evidence that the banks ATM fee structure works.
Then they loan the broke people money. And since people are broke, they can charge higher interest rates on loans or credit. That goes along wi
Re: (Score:3)
I never understand people who complain about banking fees. What is everyone doing using the ATMs so much anyway? Take out a couple of hundred bucks (or whatever) and hide that at home. Tap into it when you need it and there's your spending money. Make purchases with your credit card, and pay it off each month. If people had spending pattern like that they'd pay virtually no banking fees at all. This is how people banked before ATMs - Just do it again. I'll go out with friend
Re: (Score:2)
Profit
Taxes are already everywhere. Why more? (Score:5, Insightful)
My ISP pays the owner of lines they lease. The line owner pays taxes on their revenue. Does that not count?
My ISP pays other ISP's in access agreements. They all pay taxes. Does that not count?
The service providers make revenue. They pay taxes on the revenue. Does that not count?
On top of the services there are advertisers. They make revenues and pay taxes. Does that not count?
It seems to me the whole system is already covered.
When is the tea party?
Why more? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it made sense to give internet access special status back in the days when the idea of connecting computers was novel and fragile, and people dialed in to ISPs run by mom-and-pop businesses. N
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The store pays 35% taxes anually on their operating income (not revenue). Is this enough?
The store bought their televisions at a wholesale price from a distributor, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough?
The distributor pays 35% tax anually on their operating income. Is this enough?
The distributor bought the televisions from the manufacturer, and paid a sales tax. Is this enough?
The manufacturer bought components from various s
Re: (Score:2)
A tea party is right. We should get a bunch of old P2, load 'em with windows and toss 'em overboard. And then send down the scuba divers so we're not actively polluting navigable waters
Good! (Score:4, Funny)
A global pornography repository.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about Canada, but in the United States only the Federal Government has the power to regulate and tax interstate commerce. Ohio can't suddenly decide to tax something someone in Idaho buys from an online store in New York because their Internet traffic passes through a router in Cleveland, so why should they be able to force that same store in New York to collect sales tax for
Re: (Score:2)
Counties and cities apply sales taxes, so you have thousands of different rates. In New York City, the rate is 8.5%; in other New York City counties, it's 4% for some goods (clothes) up to $110 and 8% or 8.25% or 9% for everything else. There's one county with 5 different tax rates!
Some school districts have excise taxes on things like cell phones, cable TV and other services as well -- and that's just New York!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is how to you assess the tax rate? If I ship a computer to somebody's vacation house where there's an 8% tax rate, but his principal residence is in a place with a 9% tax, which rate is correct? The customer's home city might say that y
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't. [russnelson.com] That's why we think you're cute and adorable and keep you in cold storage to keep you out of trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Scary (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're taxing the tubes, does any commerce that goes through them get marked up, thus hiking prices for the consumer? I mean, fantastic, well done Uncle Sam - you've discovered a new and massive source of revenue, which incidentally buggers a large and growing element in your economy! Way to combat the national debt and fight the next dotcom bubble-burst.
And, more importantly, I'd like to know how this affects other countries. How many key internet services are run from or through the US? ICANN, DNS etc... all this and net-neutrality too. Why does the world seem slightly more fucked up every time you get up in the morning?
Sorry, I'm done. You can mod me down now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What would stop you setting up a computer in your shop right now with a barcode scanner attached to it. You bring what you want to buy up to the computer hit it with the barcode scanner and it automatically enters the details into the shops website. You complete the transaction by filling in your credit card details. Internet purchase, delivery choice: collected. No sales
YES! (Score:5, Insightful)
33% of every work week is worked just to pay the big 3 in taxes. I wonder what it is when you factor in all the above (and anything I missed). At some point something as got to give.
Hooray for sales tax (Score:3, Insightful)
YOUR congressmen, YOUR lawmakers (Score:2)
ooh, this is a favourite (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that will help... almost nobody. (Score:4, Interesting)
Lots of crazy implications here by taxing online sales.
Watch the pendulum swing back toward brick-and-mortar stores. Previously I would go to the showroom or store to physically see/touch/learn about a product, then go back home and order it online (because it would invariably be cheaper). Taxing the product online makes me less inclined to take that additional step if I decide to make the purchase. YMMV.
This is going to hurt the online-only shops, as the taxes will dip into profits. Some small shops (and startups) are only in business because a physical shop (either buying, building or leasing) was simply not feasible, and taxation is not going to help.
How is this going to work if the collecting of funds and the supply-chain fulfillment happens outside of the taxing authority's jurisdiction? If I'm a US business setting up shop in the Bahamas and decide to sell goods made and warehoused in China, and drop-shipping from there back to US customers, what authority would anyone on US soil have to force me to pony up the taxes back to the States? (BTW, I'm just asking... I don't own or operate any business as of this writing.)
How would any government (State and/or Federal) plan to enforce any legislation it plans, with regard to online taxation? Seems I may not have a lot to worry about, given it's track record in reducing and regulating spam. (I don't know about you all, but last week's arrest of Robert Soloway didn't do much to unclog any of my Inboxes).
If successful, all this may do is make the small shops run away. Who will this help, anyway?
Did anyone think about the implications beyond "oooohhh... free money!"...?!
Re: (Score:2)
So.... (Score:2)
Will we get revenuers? (Score:5, Interesting)
I come from North Carolina. We invented NASCAR raceing because we got bored from bootlegging. Outwitting revenuers has been a sport here for a century. If we get not just a sales tax on the connection, but a "connection tax," will my open AP "WardriversWelcome" become a bootlegging operation?
The government, here and elsewhere, has shown a great willingness to try and control access to and content on the internet. However, direct control will equal censorship, and will always be declared unconstitutional. But if the internet can be licensed and taxed, the states can effectively control who can get connections. Imagine taxing internet connections at the same level as alcohol, somewhere between 25-62% in NC. Just imagine how many people that could price out of the market, and how onerous the effect would be on the rest of us. Imagine a bandwith tax sold to curtail piracy, but effectively cutting off Linux distributions.
Maybe bootlegging will come back into fashion again. Instead of stills we'll have WAPs, but we'll still have the revenuers with the machine guns, dynamite, and axes.
Why don't we ever tax government? (Score:2)
When Is Enough Enough? (Score:2)
Surely, you must be joking. Alas, no.
So, for what will it be used? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rather than just getting mad about extra taxes, my question is: for what will the revenue be used?
Will it offset other taxes? Will it improve infrastructure?
My guess is it will simply be used to continue or expand already-broken social programs. Note that I don't necessarily advocate the elimination of social programs, but I don't think, for instance, the way to "fix" health-care costs is to subsidize them. (I think the true fix has to do with limiting liability and removing barriers to entry, incidentally.)
That's my problem - currently there is nothing that the government doesn't have enough money to do for which I want to pay more. That is, the government already provides the services I want at the price I'm currently paying. I don't want to pay more for services I don't want or need.
That's the fundamental problem with increasing taxes in the end: if people are not asking for additional services, then there should be no need for additional taxes. The problem is that some people do want more services, but the assumption is that everyone wants them. This is incorrect, as such things are usually typically very localized. I think the governments - federal and state - need to start paying more attention to geographical differences and stop trying to pass legislation that applies desires of people in one geographic or demographic region to all other geographic or demographic regions....
Ron Paul is against this tax (Score:3, Interesting)
Once again your bluff is being called. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure you work hard, and then bury yourself in work so you wont have to think about it. You, American voters, would even allow them to tax your income without a fight. Once, long ago, you had a spine and got upset about a 3% increase in the tax of tea, based on how the money was going to be used. Now you allow yourselves to be taxed at an insane level that nullifies the concept of liberty almost completely, seeing as you are a slave for almost half a year to taxes. Liberty or death? That's a good deal of both.
Please wake up all you smart computer people. Why is it the collective forces of the internet can create amazing projects such as software, operating systems, and the odd Groklaw, but has yet to create a great project for "hacking", tweaking, and tuning government via an organized effort of lobbying, letter writing, and education?
Come on. You sit there and allow someone to take almost six months of your life per year with only the smallest whimper? If that's the case almost nothing will gain your outrage.
Once again your bluff is being called. What are you going to do about it?
Back to semaphore for me (Score:2)
Tax on e-mail is unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)
Whenever this subject comes up I always marvel at the stupidity of suggesting a tax on e-mail. Not only is it unjustifiable, it's unenforceable.
E-mail removes revenue from the post office, but who cares? The USPS can hire fewer mail carriers as their volume decreases. E-mail runs mostly (if not entirely) over private infrastructure. There is no justification for an e-mail tax, because the government is not providing any significant e-mail related services. Even if you like the idea of Internet access taxes and Internet sales taxes, a tax on e-mail is simply unjust.
And how would we implement an e-mail tax? Even if we decided that it made sense for some reason - if we thought it would make spam uneconomical, for example - it's all over private infrastructure. How could we force SMTP servers to fairly account for the number of SMTP transactions they perform? E-mail server providers like Microsoft and Novell can be forced to build immutable, proprietary reporting into Exchange and Groupwise and other products, but the most common SMTP server is open source. If you are charged a cent per 100 messages you could easily recompile the SMTP daemon to be more generous. And what's to stop people from setting up new servers for unlimited e-mail? A tax on e-mail is unenforceable. I'd be surprised anyone is talking about it, if I didn't know as much about Congress as I do.
We are already taxed (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government really wanted to put a per-use tax on services like the Internet or e-mail...then they have to completely overhaul how we pay for the service in the first place (which again, is ALREADY taxed).
Is this driven by the phone companies? (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way check with your locality. Most cities get a cut of your cable bill too. Cary, NC gets about 15% of Time Warner's billable off the top as an 'access fee'. So you're being taxed at least twice and now maybe three times. By God I love living in a Red State that hates the guldurn gubmint and them thar commie taxes.
Maybe the wrong people are complaining though (Score:3, Insightful)
How about smaller government instead (Score:3)
How about we impose new fiscal responsibility laws on government instead.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in San Diego, where I pay 8.25% sales tax and a huge income tax. They still don't fund the schools or repair roads or bridges (unless you live in Del Mar).
The GP is absolutely correct.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh jesus help them , god , and baby jesus please help them.
They seem to be getting by up there fine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government provided shoes with taxpayer money, I swear to God, people like you would claim that without taxes nobody would have shoes.
The fact is that anything the government can pay for, you could pay for straight from your own pocket - and probably get a better deal.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really in favor of "have the state provide for everything", but there are a few essential key liabilities that a state is here for.
Government taking care of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, for one thing, there are the ethical implications of not doing so. Believe it or not, there are people in our society who cannot take care of themselves through no fault of their own. Why should we allow people to needlessly suffer and die when we have it within our means to not?
For another, ethical concerns aside, we as a society have a vested interest in making sure that our population is a healthy and productive one. If some members of it aren't, we should do what we can—for the sake of ourselves, if for no other reason, since we also benefit from their future productivity—to ensure that they have a chance to become so again.
Now, I know what you're thinking, that everyone on welfare and other government programs are leeches sucking off the teat of our hard-earned pay. And yes, there are a few people out there like that. But as weird as it may seem, the vast majority of people on government programs don't want to be. They'd love to be in the middle class, or even wealthy.
The problem is that most of these people either 1) don't know how to do so, or 2) have gotten so depressed with a society that systematically prevents them from making more of themselves because everyone is so damned greedy that they figure it's not worth their time and effort. They figure that they'll just end up right where they are now, just shorter of breath and one day closer to death. What's sad is that we as a country used to not be so much this way, but that these people are for the most part correct now.
Do I think that government is doing a spectacular job of helping people to help themselves? No, because it's become rather corrupt with greedy bastards who don't really care about you or me and just want to enjoy the lavish lifestyle of a Congressman. But do I think that one of the reasons government exists is to provide for the general welfare of society by doing things like providing assistance to those who need it? Yes, I most wholeheartedly do.
Taxing the internet can be good but has a peril (Score:4, Interesting)
All internet retailers should have to pay the appropriate state taxes. Even this will not be perfect, since given differences in how states tax it's not clear how to tax an e-tailer that operates out of a property tax driven state when they sell to a customer in a sales tax driven state. But this is a much lesser evil to remedy than the current situation.
Now let's turn to the peril. Right now we have an easy to apply rule. No taxes on internet sales unless there is a brick and mortar presence in the state. Once we get rid of that then legislators may covet levying all sorts of other taxes on internet sales. Sort of like how our phone and other telecom bills get larded up with hard to spot taxes and "fees". Some states might adopt protectionist provisions to protect local stores from national ones. That's not neccessarily bad in it self--it's a state's prerogative to do so short on interfering with interstate commerce. But that tort of meddling is likely to leave open all sorts of tax abuse opportunities.
Thus the parent poster is totally wrong that more taxes are bad. Indeed the more ways to tax people the more possible it is to work out fair tax structures than minimize artifactual consequences. But the parent poster's paranoia is justified. given more ways to tax states sometimes will tax more. The solution to the latter problem is quite simple. have the state set a maximum tax revenue figure that is the combination of all sources. then the state is left to argue over how to distribute that figure over the sources of taxes rather than rasing the final sum.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
No, it isn't. That would be Socialism. In theory, Socialism gives way to Communism; i.e., where the means of production are owned and controlled collectively. A government is supposed to be unnecessary.
All those Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, etc Communist parties you hear about aren't actually practicing Communism. Pretty much in the same way the US doesn't actually practice Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides which, talking about military funding as a tax problem is a red herring. It's not an issue of insufficient revenue, it's a question of misplaced priorities. There's more than enough money to buy body armor, or up-armored vehicles, or whatever, for the military, in the budget, if people in Congress wanted to do it. They've just spent that money elsewhere, and decided not to pay for body armor. Giving them more money won't necessarily change that; I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't just keep doing that. If they've already shown that equipping our soldiers is a low priority, a few extra billion here and there isn't going to change that. They're going to squander it the same way they squander all the money they have now.
Apparently I lack your faith. (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you're wrong (Score:3, Informative)
That's more an issue of military waste, rather than military funding. We have the Pentagon wasting billions on obsolete, cold-war era equipment (F-22, B-2, Crusader, etc.) while not funding body armor and new mine-resistant vehicles. Its not that the military doesn't have enough money, its that they're not spending it in a produc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A few points in response:
First, while the F-22 by itself may be only a small issue, it is a symptom of a much greater ailment. For another example, look at the Seawolf class submarines. They cost nearly a billion dollars each and were also designed to meet a thr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seawolf class is designed to be able to project power.
The cheaper diesel littoral craft and subs do not project power.
Sure, the Chinese are tough, but only in their little corner of the world.
Seawolf is tough everywhere. That's the difference.
If you want to argue that the US should not be interfering with other countries then go ahead. But, when that happens get used to skyrocketing prices (we can no longer protect our cheap suppliers) an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I think given the choice of ordering from Ottawa, and ordering from Hong Kong, I'd rather order from Ottawa given the selection, price, and reputation are up to it. I doubt I'm alone in this thought process.
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
simple, it's far easier to return a defective product ot a Brick and Mortar store. I dont have to pay for shipping to send it back and then wait 3-4 weeks for the replacement, I get a replacement in 10-30 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Tom
Re: (Score:2)
You can see what you are buying, hold it in your hands, try it on, and take it home with you that day. Those are a few reasons. Or you could be a bastard, go to your local brick and mortar store, see it, try it on, and then buy it online.
When I need a new hard drive, I'm going to still get it online since I know exactly what I want, don't need the hassle of going to a store, and will save money. But if sales tax is collected on on-line purchases, that nar
Re: (Score:2)
It's called a use tax and it's right there on your state tax forms.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I'd prefer that they just cut services. Or if they won't do that from the start, then fine, run up the sales tax, drive more sales onto the internet or into neighboring areas, wait for the local economy to collapse, and then cut services. I prefer the former path, but either
Re: (Score:2)
But your "local" store in Ottawa is just ordering its merchandise from Hong Kong. Why not cut out the middle man?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like last night, I went to Zellers [Canadian ripoff of Walmart for all intents...]. They didn't have a SINGLE FAN in the entire store. It was 27C last night. The store stocks random assortments of "this and that" but rarely anything of substance. If the store wasn't a block from my house I'd never set foot in it. The nearest Walmart is a 5 min drive away. They a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Two possibilities here....
Re: (Score:2)
Answer: There are, but not enough. My fav computer shop has an online and brick presence. If I feel like it, I could UPS shit from 10km away and avoid driving into another part of the city. (Or suppose I didn't own a car and it was to heavy to lug on a bus...).
But many shops have little to no online presence. Like Zellers, Walmart, Canadian Tire, various music shops, etc. About the only large retailer with a decent online shop is Sears, but their delivery folk
VERY Good (Score:4, Interesting)
For example:
Person X: $2000/month take home pay of which $400 is spent on things subject to a 5% sales tax. He pays $20/month in sales tax - or 1%.
Person Y: $8000/month take home pay of which $1000 is spent on things subject to sales tax. He pays $50/month in sales tax - or 0.6%.
So sales tax is inherently regressive. When sales tax doesn't apply to internet purchases, that means that those with internet access (the more affluent) pay less sales tax than the poor. So taxing internet purchases makes those who are more affluent (and more likely to purchase things from the internet) pay even less in taxes.
So I think this is EXTRA good!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you, my luddite friend.
Internet retailers are more efficient and usually pay their employees more than local businesses. They require fewer employees and serve more customers.
The thing is: The middleman shouldn't exist in the first place, if you think about it. The internet has middlemen competing and makes their role in the process less and less prevalent.
I used to work for one. I made 20% more than the average best buy employee starting, and I had nothing more than a high school diploma. I worked my way up to supervisor and could have even had health benefits if I had actually been full time. The place I worked for, in spite of all this, pays its employees less than most warehouses.
This new tax will help some local businesses. However, for the most part, the internet will continue to replace these businesses even on a 'level playing field'.
And on a slightly less related note: Is anyone else annoyed that the government pursues any possible source of revenue? People do not want to pay taxes, and the government makes more than enough money to do everything it should be doing. The solution to the budgetary crises across the US should be obvious: Cut spending. I guess it's a lot harder to shrink government than to steal more money from the people. Sales taxes are especially bad because they disproportionately tax the poor (poor pay a higher % of their income to a sales tax than others do).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They'll still win. The state will just get its (un)fair cut of the transaction.
Online, I can search for exactly what I want, find a few highly rated variants of that product, and pull up the specs on each in seconds. I can search for negative reviews about them to see if they look good on paper but don't live up to expectations. I can then "shop around" to get a good price (even repeating the "negative reviews" chec
Re:Once again...not new taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Internet Access Universal Access Fee: $3.54
High Speed Usage Fee @ 3.6% of connection speed of 6mbps: $2.16
Local Connection Usage Fee: $5.00
Street Access Fee: $2.50
Pole Access Fee: $1.50
Total Taxes: $14.70
If you think those aren't new taxes you a
Re: (Score:2)
If they are going to put in a tax, they should just say 5% of your internet access fee. Flat, no weird math, nothing hard.
I'm opposed to taxing the internet, but if they have to, don't make it some 20 level deep if/else statement.
If they "do it right" as you recommen
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's Senator Michael Enzi [senate.gov], Republican, Wyoming.
Mind you, I vote independent, and I'm sure there are plenty of Democrats for this measure, so I'm not trying to defend them. That said, what people tend to forget is that a large number of Congressional Republicans are no longer in favour of small government, and low t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're joking, right? Every dollar I spend at retail goes through at least three rounds of taxation: federal income tax, state income tax, and sales tax. And God help me if I manage to save one of my twice-taxed salary dollars, rather than spend it immediately; the interest I earn is taxed by the same gang of thieves all over again.