WTO May Extend E-Commerce Import Duty Moratorium 48
Pig Hogger writes "A meeting of World Trade Ministers would seem to propose an
18 month extension of the duty break that currently applies to cyberspace.
But the fact is, the duty break only applies to what is transmitted electronically, so therefore imposing duties on such would essentially be unenforcable by customs officials...
However, it is being proposed by the US that such a duty exemption be extended to the 'physical equivalent' of goods such as digital music and software. Can you spell MEDIA?" The story's from Fox News.
Moratorium (Score:1)
The first step... (Score:1)
~Caliban
Extension is Wise (Score:2)
A long-term decision would be unwise. Nobody knows what the future will bring for Cyberspace, and decisions can always be reversed. A 1.5 year decision is unlikely to be revisited until it is time to discuss an exemption. This allows the WTO to revisit the issue as the transistions are taking place.
In the long run, the Internet MAY make sales/VAT taxes irrelevant as geography becomes silly. On the other hand, if localities eliminate the tax advantage of E-businesses by eliminating VAT/sales taxes, then we may see a long term vision which involves both brick-and-mortar and E-businesses. The WTO is wise to take a wait and see approach.
moratorium (Score:1)
upcoming meeting (Score:2)
ummmmm... (Score:1)
Is it just me, or should maybe the World Trade Organization hold ministerial meetings just a tad more often than every three years? Don't get me wrong, I support their 'wait-and-see' approach, as it is almost a first in good government strategy. Almost always this approach is used exactly when it doesn't need to be by governments. But it's rather obvious they've taken to sticking their nose into internet trade, and if for no other reason than that, they should meet more often.
Who can keep up with something as fast-paced as the internet, and yet choose to meet that seldom?
Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:1)
One thing that has been fundamentally obvious for a long time is that the new world of global telecommunications and "cyberspace" necessitates a serious legal rethinking. It's not at all clear "where" something happens or exists. The courts are decades behind the pace of technology at it is. In the 80s I ran a local BBS and came across this issue. If there is a legal dispute between two users, it was unclear whether the laws of the location of the BBS, the location of the accused, or the location of the accuser applied. I had imagined that this would be resolved by an act of congress within a few years. Yeah right. Over a decade later, the situation has become tremendously murkier, and no legal progress has been made.
We live in a world in which nobody knows where they are, or whose laws apply to them. A message travelling between two cities in Switzerland could go through half a dozen countries on the way. Or several dozen. And people imagine that they can even *define* an import or export, let alone monitor, regulate or tax them?!!
Re:moratorium (Score:2)
Take a look at a list of financial supporters for the upcoming meeting in Seattle, and do a little research [globalizethis.org].
WTO/SEATTLE HOST ORGANIZATION
SUPPORTERS LIST (as of November 1, 1999)
Emerald Level ($250,000)
=======================
Allied Signal/Honeywell
Deloitte & Touche
Extreme Networks
Ford Motor Company
General Motors Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Nextel Communications
State of Washington
The Boeing Company
U S WEST
Diamond Level ($249,999-$150,000)
=================================
Activate.net
United Parcel Service
United Technologies Corporation
Weyerhaeuser Company
Platinum Level ($149,999-$75,000)
=================================
AT&T
Bank of America
Columbia Resource Group
Expeditors International
Hewlett-Packard Company
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons
Preston Gates & Ellis
Procter & Gamble
The Production Network
The Workshop
Gold Level ($74,999-$25,000)
============================
Active Voice Corporation
APCO Associates
Business Wire
Caterpillar
Cisco Systems
Digital Seattle
Federal Express Corporation
Frank Russell Company
IBM
Lucent
Lufthansa
PACCAR
Port of Seattle
Skyway Luggage Company
U.S. Bank
Silver Level ($24,999-$10,000)
==============================
APL Limited
Bethlehem Steel
Gray Line of Seattle
Intel Corporation
Northwest Airlines
Northwest Horticultural Council
Perkins Coie LLP
Port of Tacoma
Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.
Seattle Chocolate Company
Thistle Press
Washington Wine Commission
United Airlines
Xerox Business Services
Bronze Level ($9,999-$5,000)
============================
American Electronics Association
American Vintners Association
Atlas Air
Chase Manhattan Bank
Chukar Cherry Company
City University
Homelands International Company
Horizon Airlines
Lane Powell Spears Lubersky LLP
Muckleshoot Casino
Renaissance Madison Hotel
S. Martinelli & Co.
Starbucks
Union Bank of California
Union Square Limited Partnership
Washington Software Alliance
... (Score:4)
I'm outside the US!
*click* *click*
Now I'm back in!
*click* *click*
Outside the US again!
What are you gonna do, tell my legions of electrons to stop at the router for an inspection? You'll find they're largely negatively charged from being spammed alot, but little else...
--
Re:Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:2)
I presume the same general principles of contract law applies to Internet transactions.
Privatise sales tax (Score:4)
Historically duties and sales taxes comes from the ancient marketplace. The sellers would pay a small fee to the market which would help to promote it and, crucially, guarantee and enforce a certain standard and a consistent set of rules for trade. (Big) Government has taken over the role as the overseer of trading standards and as the guarantoor of the order of the "marketplace". It has also taken the market tax.
However, in the internet age this approach is looking increasingly strange. I, as a consumer, can buy goods anywhere at the click of a mouse, and the government can not hope to regulate all and every market. And even if I knew the physical location of the seller (not a trivial thing) and even if the local government enforced a reasonable set of trading standards (obviously not true everywhere), it would be very difficult and expensive for me to actually seek redress in a local court.
The solution, in my opinion, is to return to the medieval market arrangement. Let us have private markets which regulate themselves, and let the consumers decide which markets to deal in. It is not a completely alien idea: most stock markets operate in this way (even if they are not exactly free from government regulation) and most of the online markets (e.g. e-bay, amazon, ...) have at least some rules and attempts at consumer protection.
The bad news for govenrment is that it will loose a lot of revenue. But it will also loose some of the responsibility (if it can ever give up power!) and therefore, presumably, costs. In the future governments will increasingly have to rely on taxing immobile value like land and buildings. Trade and people are both becoming too mobile.
Incidently the UK has a funny half-way house where I as a consumer can choose to sue my UK credit card company instead of the retailer for any disputes over a purchase. Interesting: as money become increasingly a branded commodity is this the way forward?
Re:Extension is Wise (Score:2)
Re:Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:3)
Help me understand this one: I'm a Danish citizen who dials my UK ISP from Germany to read my e-mail on a Californian server (I'm not making this up!) : where "am" I, for the purpose of the law? Does it make a difference if I download the e-mail to my laptop before/after reading it?
I'm not a lawyer so I'm confused.
Re:The first step... (Score:2)
This is just a prime example of how traditional concepts in industry are clashing with Internet culture/concepts. It seems to me that with more and more things coming online, people have brought with them their traditional concepts about country boundaries, transporting of goods, etc., and they are experiencing a "culture shock" in a sense.
For example, they try to draw an analogy between "exporting" or "importing" of "goods". First of all, there is no physical object being moved from one place to another, it's merely an electronic transmission of some data. As long as the source machine agrees to send it to the destination, this transfer can take place without needing to physically carry the data across the country. The analogy between "goods" and a data stream is fuzzy -- would downloading a README file constitute an "import of goods" or do you need to download the entire package before it's considered a unit of "goods"?
Then, on the Internet, the boundaries are not physical -- the only boundaries are connectivity and accessibility of the data on the remote host. Sounds like a lot of these concepts -- import, export, the definitions of "goods" must be rethought to fit in with the Internet medium.
Another example (probably offtopic :-) is how traditional concepts of proprietary software are so ingrained that people just don't "get" the Open Source idea.
And yes indeed, hopefully this is a first step, not only for people to realize the Internet cannot be regulated, but even more so, for people to realize that the Internet is a completely different medium with rules that are quite different from traditional rules. New rules need to be developed that fit in the Internet's context, not merely old rules shoe-horned (imposed) on top of the Internet as though the net were the same as the physical world.
Taxing the internet is like taxing air ... (Score:3)
Secondly, governments, despite their perception of gross stupidity, are not ignorant about the economic benefits of IT. Any one government that wants to put a tarriff/tax on IT traffic will find itself in a comparative disadvantage as firms immediately relocate their services offshore and land their fibre cables elsewhere. How many country towns disappeared due to newly created highways bypassing their locales?
Thirdly is what exactly is there to be taxed? Can you demand 20% of all the bits flowing along a wire? Can you have half a promise (essentially what money has now devolved to)? Much of the information that flows nowadays are transactions, or essentially bookkeeping activities between firms or internal transfers between business units of the same company. Calculating a dollar cost is a complex task. For its 10% GST impost, the Australian government tried to figure out a value-added-tax formula for financial transactions but gave up in the end.
As for juristiction, that is another whole can of worms that nobody wants to touch due to the headaches (and politics) involved. There will always be the odd-ball country that will refuse to play along (why do you think international tax havens exist?). Even if the US government unilaterally imposed the ol' greenback on the rest of the world with all the associated legal baggage, some smart cookie will find a solution to avoid confiscatory measures like establishing extra-territorial oil platforms beyond national maritine borders to host electronic services. Identities and paper corporations can be created faster than any countermeasure to crack down so it becomes a losing game. One can only look at corporations like Fox/News to see how shifting costs between countries can add extra value to the bottom-line.
As one wag used to say, he doesn't think the government is that efficient that its worth giving them more than the minimum required by law. Perhaps the only solution is to become rich then let public pressure and social stigma require individual voluntary contributions to non-profit causes.
LL
Link to the story... (Score:1)
Ugh (Score:1)
I have this funny feeling that it is going to be difficult for me to get in that week.
Re:The first step... (Score:1)
Re:Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:1)
Where you "are" doesn't matter - most contracts you make actually state under which jurisdiction the contract has been drafted and to which both parties agree to be bound.
To take your case - you have an English ISP and you agreed to their terms and conditions - disputes with them will probably be setlled under English law. If you have a separate agreement with a Californian company to get your email and you agreed to their terms and conditions then you'll be subject to Californian state law. If you offer something to sell on the internet, and you agree to sell it whilst you are standing in Germany, then you'll probably be subject to German contract law. Whose laws you are subject to vary with who you want to pick a fight with! :-).
[if anyone IS a lawyer feel free to correct me - I'm sure a professional lawyer can make it more complicated :-) ]
Sales Tax (Score:1)
Tax Sales are unfair cause they are not progressive.
Now on an 'ecological' point of view. Tax sales is an incentive for rich people to invest their money in finance instead of buying taxed goods. Income tax on the other side favors people with low income as they get more cash after tax than people with higher revenue for the same work provided
---
Re:Sales Tax (Score:1)
IANAE (I am not an Economist!)
IMHO, ANY tax can be avoided/limited if you have sufficiently good acccountants.
Sales taxes are progressive in that rich people spend more money and hence pay more tax. As the previous poster stated, they are an incentive to invest, but for everyone, not just the rich.
Re:Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:1)
Except, firstly, that this may be English law but it is possible that it is not German law so you, as the consumer, would have no rights! (How is this dealt with for faxes?) Secondly, there was an EU proposal that would make the jurisdiction of any internet transaction the country of the consumer, i.e. the direct opposite of English law. Of course only enforsable within the EU so I'd have to ask you for your nationality and deal with you differently (what if you lie!?). I guess US companies already have to do this with the silly export restrictions.
It all just goes to show that conventional notions fail in the internet world.
I'm going to stand with one leg on each side of a border, connect through my GSM cell-phone, and sell you something dodgy just to find out how the law is going to deal with that.
But thanks for the clarification. Oh, and I think it [demon.net] is now a Scottish ISP - I'm sure there are somebody who cares... :-)
Re:I LOATHE the WTO!!! (Score:1)
That crony thing gives it all away- as kickass as that script is the crony makes it reek of itself. That said, the WTO is _evil_ and to that guy that posted earlier about what a bummer day he will have crossing the line of protest to get to work in Seattle- BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!
Peace
Re:upcoming meeting (Score:1)
Consider, in the future you may not be able to pass a law which protects the environment, enforces minimum wages, or any number of other 'anti-free trade' laws.
There are lots of sites about what people are doing to counter the WTO, such as N30.org [n30.org]. You should also read up on the background [zmag.org] of the new global capitalist order [wto.org].
Re:Laws (Score:1)
-/ Hey, I really like Microsoft's slant on foreign trade policy, maybe I should invest some stock in them and get a copy of my license barcode tattooed to my ass- and of course I sure don't want to have any Jews in my closet when the MS squadron come calling, and our theme song is sure nice.
Awww, isn't that great. The WTO has delayed an e-commerce tax law! Waaaait a second.. Who the fuck is the WTO [lookatwhatwegot.com] and how did they end up with the power to decide this shit for me?!
Re:upcoming meeting... support the WTO (Score:1)
H'mmmm.
I must have missed the meeting where we decided that big business decided global law. Do you happen to have the minutes from it?
Re:Boundaries and Jurisdictions (Score:1)
In a fairly recent case, a system administrator, who had adult material which was legal in the state where he (and his server) reside was indicted under the laws of the state someone was in when they downloaded the materials. He paid a fine, and there was no appeal. This case is one of many similar ones. Under such a precedent, you could be charged under the laws of any country from which someone can connect to your service. How'd you like to be arrested next time you visit Hong Kong for violating Chinese political speech laws?
Re:... (Score:1)
Physically, I'm in New Zealand, working for a large multi-national company, based out of the US. I'm using the internal network to get to a firewall based in Texas. When it comes to doing anything on the Internet, where am I?
Re:... (Score:1)
--
Losing sleep in Seattle (Score:1)
Re:... (Score:1)
Seller is in China... Website in United States.. buyer in Australia..
Wait it gets more complex...
Manfactuer is in england as well as a werhousing company that accually pacage and ships the product... the costumer has the pacage (a gift) shipped to a friend in Cannida not to himself in Australia.
Who gets the sales tax?
Wait a few years... that website could be in orbit...
Risk of tax-free Internet buying (Score:1)
He warns that it will lead to include an "Internet transaction" in your supermarket buy.
--