WTO Puts Internet Taxes on Hold 90
dafunn writes "CNet is reporting that the WTO is in agreement over extending the current Net tax ban for another 18 to 24 months. I don't know how long this will last, but it looks like temporary good news for e-commerce in general. The story is availible online. "
Why? (Score:2)
Why? Because they just don't understand it.
Tax? (Score:2)
first they got rid of duty free, then this, what next? (france is still cheaper to buy mucho booze from tho)
what is this ? (Score:1)
Analysts estimate that e-commerce could swell into a $2 trillion to $5 trillion business in the next six years. About half of that will be generated outside the United States, they say.
e-commerce outside of the US ? ? Ohhh yeah baby, we are going international!
But i would love to see how crazy a tax system would get on the Net!! Hmmm probably have a movie about it soon
Internet Economy (Score:1)
The first rule in economics..you do not talk about economics....no wait a minute that's not it.
It seems to me that the people who would most like to see taxes on e-commerce are politicians and big business. Politicians want it so they can soak more money out of the masses. Big Business wants it because they know they can afford it and the smaller companies will be thrown from the walls
Hannibal is at the gate and I, for one, am writing my representatives.
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Taxes raise the price of goods without putting any money in profit form into the pockets of the seller. Raising the price without raising the profit is something I would think that people interested in "trade" would be clearly against.
I was thinking about writing a totally paranoid rant about the WTO and inserting it here, but I figure I'll pass because we've probably already seen most of this stuff. Just IMHO as an organization, you've got to be pretty evil to get a super-apathetic American public so pissed off as to go into the streets and protest in those numbers.
Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:2)
I am not a student of economics so if someone could enlighten me: If the goal of WTO is to get rid of tariffs and import/export taxes which will result in increased trade among the nations, why is it such a bad thing?
Sticky Fingers (Score:2)
Besides it is difficult to determine just what to tax. What is the basis for determining who gets the tax? The location of the server hosting a selling company? The location of the company's HQ? The location of the factory/warehouse the sold product is coming from? The buyer's location (in all his possible permutations)? The thought that I could be taxed buy multiple governments scares me.
Mike Eckardt [geocities.com] meckardt@yahoo.spam.com
Potential implications (Score:3)
(Gov't == M$) (Score:1)
Reasons Are Probably Less Honorable (Score:3)
Instead, the reasons are almost unanimously to continue to entice and encourage more people to use the internet for purchases. Once they are satisfied that Internet purchases have become a way-of-life, as ingrained as handing a credit card over for every purchase at the local convenience store, the taxes will be ushered forth by a rush of oinking pigs, eager to pillage your pocket on every transaction.
Yes, there are various reasons for and against taxing Internet transactions, but I'm speaking only to the reasoning behind the current hype over not taxing. It's temporary -- and it is for the best interest of all governments. Don't be lulled into believing that they really are interested in simple free-trade and uninhibited capitalism and entrepreneurship.
Proposed delays are in the best interest of those who wish taxing (even heavy taxing) of the Internet.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Comment removed (Score:3)
Read my lips... (Score:1)
Here little kids, want some candy? We will feed you candy in the early days, then sell you into slavery when you grow up. WTO is Big Brother coming to life. This whole thing scares me. Seems the WTO is only intent on enslaving third world workers. That $500 Meade telescope I just bought, made in Taiwan - I bet the guy who actually did the hard work probably made fifty cents to build it. A dollar if lucky.
More WTO Protest discussion here. [24.3.245.223]
Sounds good, but it's not enough. (Score:1)
After a little thought, it is actually quite disheartening that they are still leaving the door open to reverse this position in the future.
Time to start a new 'net, one they can't touch.
Re:Why? (Score:1)
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:2)
There are always orginizations that will set rules over the activities of everyone.
Note, you don't elect the reps from other states, yet they directly affect things IN your state. No, they wheren;t elected by you at all, but by someone else. These same people may be residing on a board that decides how much money you get for your highways and schools. Yet you didn;t elect them at all..
Then there are the judges. You didn;t vote for that guy who just made you pay an 'unfair' speeding ticket, did you.. Guess he shouldn't have any authority, eh?
Re:Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:1)
Additionally, (and I'm still researching this point, so don't go quoting me just yet) our obligations under the WTO would be in direct violation to our Constitution in several ways. I won't detail them yet since, like I said, I'm not done researching this yet.
I know I didn't really answer your question very well, but hopefully I've pointed you in the right direction to find the answers for yourself.
Just remember, this is politics, and the first rule of doing evil through political means is "Make it sound good on the surface." If you want to know why people are objecting, you need to dig beneath the surface and check out the details.
Re:Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:3)
Where does government enter into this? Government decides the compromise between what its voters demand (high wages, good jobs, environmental protection, fair treatment of labor, etc) and what these companies demand (largely, the diametric opposite). The decisions made by governments are reflected in its trade policies.
Not that the government is correct, but that's the rationale IMHO.. The scary part is that, when compared, corporate demand is like the tortoise and popular demand is like the hare: slow and steady lobbying will almost always beat heated point-in-time (but mostly ephemeral) protests..
Your Working Boy,
Re:Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:1)
As an example, the US has resently placed an import tax of some sort (I'm a little sketchy on the details, because I basicly don't care) on beef because our (New Zealand) producers can make it much more cheeply, and US farmers just couldn't compete...
Not all bad (Score:1)
Lick Them Sticky Fingers (Score:1)
Re:Thank God! (Score:1)
This was my first impression, too. However, after more thought, I think the correct response is to be pissed that these bastards are even considering it in the first place.
Is this really good for the End-user ? (Score:1)
tax free E-commerce is good for the seller, good for the buyer. But on the long term is it Good for the citizen ?
I don't think so. The state will loose money and it will raise other taxes
Re: (Score:1)
It's Gotta Happen! (Score:1)
Why should the internet be any different? We need to realize that internet commerce is killing local retailers. If those retailers go, we loose the tax base they generated (read downtown improvements). E-Commerce is good for the consumer, but bad for the community.
We should not be trying to eleminate E-Tax. We should work to make sure that the tax is FAIR and the money goes to improve the internet as a whole (maybe into r&d or local bandwidth increaces?).
As to the question of who could impose the tax, I do not think the WTO or the federal government could do that. If the fed govmt could tax interstate commerce, they would have done so already; and the WTO cannot impose any regulations in-country (they could lobby our politicians to do so).
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
Actually, while judges aren't elected INTO office, every time I vote, their names are on the ballot to be voted OUT OF office. So even though you didn't vote for the guy who made you pay the unfair speeding ticket, you WILL have an opportunity to vote against him.
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
BTW, since when was your government delegated by a democratic vote, anyway? In a true democracy, it doesn't cost upwards of $30 million to get elected...
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of comments (Score:2)
Raising the price without raising the profit is something I would think that people interested in "trade" would be clearly against
Maybe in the first world. If you are a delegate from the third world you may be interested in tarrifs. Since you can't tax your own people enough to support your government you may have to rely on taxing imports to generate revenue.
On a similar note, we in the first world had to experience the unfair labor laws, child exploitation, and unsanitary and downright lifethreatening work environments as we navigated the industrial revolution. Now that we find ourselves navigating the information revolution we (President Clinton, the Seattle protesters, silent first-world citizens nodding in affirmation) believe that we can impose labor standards on these developing countries despite their cost of implemenation. Why would we think another country must implement our standards and not have to go through the same growing pains we had to in order to get to where we are?
Finally...
you've got to be pretty evil to get a super-apathetic American public so pissed off as to go into the streets and protest in those numbers.
It's not an apathetic public that is protesting. You have a very organized protest that has been in the making for months. They annouced their objectives months ago, and Seattle has no one to blame except themselves for the crisis. They could have planned better. Still, the AFL-CIO is helping to organize the protesters, and why not? Labor standards (read socialism) is their goal. If they can export their beliefs perhaps they can have a voice in the rule of government which adopt those beliefs.(NY Times) include the Sierra Club, United Steelworkers of America, and various smaller groups. [nytimes.com]
They are definitely a well-organized group with a self-serving message to be heard.
Re: (Score:2)
some alreafd are... (Score:1)
I bought some jeans from levi.com and was charged sales tax. Their 'Help' section states:
Is that bullshit, or for real?
(regardless, I don't plan on going back. Their site sucks.)
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
Guess it all depends on which perspective you're looking at it from...
Not a leveler either. (Score:1)
All this comes at the expense of the store across town, mind you, which, if like the average department store, employs a handful of career individuals, a few desperate folks, and a whole lot of kids in school. A good number of the people who don't fit in, and those who are using it as a 'play' job for Friday's date money get fired as the store knuckles down for competition.
Now, add a bunch of taxes to the situation. I think a fairly low yet reasonable figure is, oh, 10%. After all, the American and European governments show little moderation once they start charging taxes. The people's pockets are infinitely deep. Now, suddenly the prices online are just about the same as the prices on the shelves at the store across town. With shipping, that makes those online prices more expensive, and less convient, since it's not anwhere near as fast as the run across town this afternoon. Bang, the internet companies can't compete anymore. They start to fold left and right as the wealthy return to purchasing the cumulatively cheaper items in their hometown, and the internet gets stripped in terms of commerce, as the weaker companies die off between the double blow of less business, and profit stripping taxes. This super culling process would leave a handful of AOL size behemoths, probably net monopolies, and nothing else... Not the best sort of thing for a capitalistic system, neh?
Not every field should be level. After all, water couldn't do anything but stagnate if all the world were perfectly flat.
Re:Not all bad (Score:1)
I must take exception to this statement. I work my ass off for every last cent that I put into my pocket. Now, if I choose to work even harder, and as a result put more money in my pocket, why do I suddenly have LESS of a right to expect to be able to keep the money which I worked so hard to earn?
Re:Missing the Point 101 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Boy, Slashdot sure is schizophrenic these days (Score:1)
Re:It's Gotta Happen! (Score:3)
It shouldn't, and, as far as I know, it isn't.
Placing an order over the Internet is treated exactly the same way as any other mail order transaction. If I purchase something from outside my state, there is no sales tax. When I buy my TRGPro in January, I'll have to pay sales tax since they are in my state. And I'll have to pay that sales tax regardless of whether I phone my order in, drive the two blocks down the street to pick it up in person, or place my order through the web.
When you get right down to it, e-commerce is nothing new. It's basically just mail-order, we've been doing it for years, I mean, how long ago did the first Sears & Roebuck catalog come out? Calling it e-commerce just means that you're using this "new fangled Internet thingie-jigger" to let the company know that you want them to send you something. It's still no different than picking up the phone and ordering something from the Sears catalog. Frankly, I can see no reasone whatsoever why they think there needs to be a special tax on the sale just because you place your order through a web form instead of a phone call. (No reason other than blatant governmental greed, anyway.)
Re:Read my lips... (Score:1)
Re:some alreafd are... (Score:1)
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:2)
coercing the U.S. into spending large amounts of our resources to aid the rest of the world
That's complete b*llsh*t. To start, the US owes the UN more money than any other country. I think they haven't paid a cent of the UN dues since the organization was started. And yet, they get a few "perks" out of it. The headquarters are in the US, so all the bureaucratic jobs to to American citizens. And, the US gets a veto power!!!
If you ask me, I'm surprised it's not every country *other* than the US that ignores the UN.
Re: (Score:1)
Internet Commerce really new? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point 101 (Score:1)
The WTO Gets Outrageous (Score:1)
If this is their rule, the WTO will sanction nations who charge taxes for internet sales. But what right does the WTO have to tell a nation what to do with their own taxes? I mean isn't that what tariffs are about? If France imposes a 5% tax on internet sales then people will buy from elsewhere.
There's your net tax ban right there. Screw the WTO.
But don't worry about it right now. You'll understand exactly what I mean in 5 years.
Re:Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:2)
Here's the reason (Score:1)
BUT...if they keep it a tax-free medium for a period of time, e-commerce will grow to the point to where a tax will not impact it (because everyone buys goods via the Internet). THEN they will tax it.
convenient morality (Score:1)
That's the two words you were looking for
Frankly speaking I don't care if the WTO declares war on sweatshops, taxes of all sorts, and the killing of sea turtles (and I am definitely in favor of laws protecting them; who's it gonna hurt to protect endangered turtles??).
I still don't want any organization violating a nation's sovereignty with their one-size-fits-all trade laws.
Do you think the WTO protects the interests of small nations against the bullying power of the big ones? Bull puckey. All the small countries are getting their tails kicked.
(FYI the WTO overrode the US, which until then protected sea turtles - see the Dec. 3 LA Times, page A1)
(1) Local interests lose jobs (Score:1)
(2) gives more political control to businesses (Score:1)
Business are more greedy- exploit workers and the environment.
(This is a reason, not that I believe it.)
(3) Cedes sovereignty to extra-national bodies (Score:1)
(Not that I believe it.)
We will eventually NEED internet taxes (Score:1)
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
Do you really believe that? Fact is, the best interests of the *UN itself* are taken into account. The UN is maneuvering to position itself as the One World Government. The best interests of any single nation, or group of nations, are only looked after occasionally, and then only as a PR exercise.
To start, the US owes the UN more money than any other country.
I'm actually not quite sure what our status is on payment of dues, but I can assure you that any unpaid amount is trivial in comparison to money owed us by other countries that we will never see. Not to mention that the dues should not be paid anyway, since our participation in this organization is in direct violation of our Constitution.
The headquarters are in the US, so all the bureaucratic jobs to to American citizens
Give me a break. Have you checked our population recently? The paltry few bureaucratic and clerical jobs we get by virtue of locating the headquarters in New York is hardly what I'd call relevant to our economy. Sheesh, you're really stretching on this one.
And, the US gets a veto power!!!
This is the one and only reason I can see for us to even maintain membership. And it still doesn't justify the surrender of part of our sovereignty to foreign influences.
Please, by all means, boot us out. Put the headquarters in London, Stockholm, Toronto, Johannesburg, or wherever. U.S. involvement in the UN is NOT in the best interest of our country, and I'll be throwing a huge party at my place the day our delegates stand up in front of the general assemply, flip everyone the bird, and announce "Screw you all, we're out of here!"
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
The only fair choice: income tax. The more you make, the more you pay. What about flat taxes where everyone pays the same amount? These are typically "income only" taxes, which exclude all money coming in from investments and the like. Under the last 17% flat tax I saw pitched, Steve Forbes would have paid nothing.
Oh, gee, but high taxation of the rich stifles investment and innovation. Here's a rude wake-up. Bush just advocated something like a 33.6% maximum for the highest tax bracket. Few people realize that in the 1950's, the highest tax bracket in the US was around 80%. In short, the government bled the rich dry. *sarcasm* And gee, the 1950's sure were a miserable time for industry. There was soo little innovation and industrial expansion during that time. *end sarcasm* The rationale was, after the first few hundred thousand a year, you've definitely got enough to live comfortably, and Uncle Sam gets the rest. (Can anyone out there not live really well on $1,000/day?)
Tariffs and sales taxes are the wrong answer.
no more taxes (Score:1)
Here's a little rationnality (Score:1)
Without music, life would be an error.
Re: (Score:1)
powershift? (Score:3)
That damn democracy thing (Score:1)
Libertarian is the answer (Score:1)
Internet Taxes and the WTO (Score:2)
There are no special taxes on services sold over the web, and software sold over the web is in a sort of limbo where there is no clear avenue to charge duties across borders.
I suspect the WTO is simply postponing working out exactly what regimes of taxation should and should work over the web between countries. This is as much a bad thing as a good one - it is no guarantee of a tax free nirvana online.
The WTO encourages free trade after a fashion by providing a mechanism for determining what kinds of laws and taxes are fair for international commerce and which ones aren't. The only power of enforcement they have available is that they can sanction tariffs against offending countries if the country doesn't agree to change its laws.
The WTO can't just amend national laws. Any country can pass any law they like, as long as they are willing to pay the price.
My problem is not with the idea of a global tribunal of that type, nor with the idea of free trade, nor even with the very limited enforcement mechanism available to them. However, what I consider fair rules and free trade differs substantially from what the WTO thinks, and there is no mechanism whereby I can influence WTO policy in that regard. That is what is truely wrong with the WTO.
Re:Here's a little rationnality (Score:1)
Which is precisely why someone running a business in San Diego, California should not be paying taxes to the government of Bangor, Maine. The Bangor schools do not educate his workers. He does not tread upon the Bangor sidewalks. He does not drive upon the Bangor roads. What part of this progression eludes you?
By all means, levy a reasonable property tax on his storage facilities and offices in San Diego (unless you have a better idea of how to pay for the local services he does use and legitimately should support). Internet tax proposals (and mail-order tax proposals generally) are simply government greed.
/.
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
Eighty-five countries have contributed peace-keeping troops, the majority of whom are from third-world countries. Look at the list of current peacekeeping missions [un.org]. The UN pays $1000 per soldier per month, which makes it a strong incentive for poorer countries to send troops for peacekeeping duty.
Most of this debt is subsidies for US industry and agriculture. The money often never even changes hands. You want 40 F-16s? No money? No problem - we can arrange a loan for you. The loan is announced with great fanfare. Dignitaries sign documents and shake hands before cameras. The F-16s get shipped a few months later. On the other hand, the US dues for 1999 are $298 million. With a population of 300 million, that's about $1 per citizen. Compared to that, the US spends $12 billion for ``foreign aid''. More than 50% of this goes to Israel and Egypt. Most of that money - you guessed it - ends up as a subsidy for the arms industry.
I agree with you, but for different reasons! The UN has a role to play - preventing WWIII. The US, with its bullying of the UN after non-payment of dues to the tune of $1.5 billion, is subverting its authority. Here is the UN's take on the money issue [un.org]. This was taken to another level after ramming the Yugoslavia operation down the UN's throat. Other nations are less likely to trust the ability of the UN to take an impartial(one not dictated by the USA) stand on any matter. Ergo, the UN loses legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
The real problem with e-taxes (Score:2)
Most local and state governments in the US are very dependent upon some form of sales tax. As has been stated in other posts to this article, the day will probably come when there will be taxes levied upon internet commerce. But you can be sure that when that happens (what, maybe 2-3 years from now?) that it will be the federal government that will have to authority to levy and collect these taxes. There may be some sort of system created to distribute these monies back to the individual states, but you can be assured that any such system will do more to place state government under the thumb of the feds.
I'm just as much in favor of lower taxes as the next guy, but I'm concerned that the current hysteria about keeping taxes off of internet commerce isn't really just becoming a temporary subsidy for internet retailers. Do they really need that tax break to become established? Come on now; we should all be aware (especially
It is a given that the internet is so new that any tax system put in place by any government has a chance of not being the best solution. Will this change in a few years when governments finally get around to it? Probably not.
Here's a link to a summary of the feelings of many of the states' governors about the current situation: http://www.nga.org/Releases/Letters/971010letter.
While you're there, browsing the rest of the nga.org site for more information, including reasonable proposals for dealing with this issue now. We just can't stick our heads in the sand about this issue because we enjoy the current tax-free shopping. Be aware, the internet *will not* remain tax-free. It's just a matter of time before the amount of money available for taxation can't be passed up by an government. The longer we wait to do something about this the more likely it is that the taxing authority will be the national government, with the corresponding transfer of power from local to national government.
WTO == Corporate mafia (Score:3)
Politicians finance their campaings with corporate money and in exchange they take care of corporate agenda's. The WTO is nothing but a multinationnal corporate mafia that has power OVER democraties.
I mean, this would be nice if The People could use it as an internationnal court to limit corporate misbehaviour but it turns out it's the other way around. The WTO is there so that corporations interests no longer need a govenment's aproval for anything they want to do.
The biggest INSULT to democraties is that the people who make decision at the WTO are chosen in totally arbitrary ways by the corporations themselves!!! Knowing this, can anyone say there is no Big Brother? This is even worse than an Imperialist state because it covers the whole damned planet. Ironically, who's "tax" money do you think is backing this up?
Without music, life would be an error.
Re:Be a happy little "citizen unit" (Score:1)
isolationist: No, not really.
wacko: I don't think so, but it depends on who you ask.
WTO is a farse (Score:1)
Apologies (Score:1)
Apologies to all for the bad grammar in my preceding post.
fuck the WTO. (Score:1)
Because of their bullshit, I have been peppergassed, had my neighborhood overtaken by stormtroopers and watched little old ladies and
children get gassed, shot and beaten.
UGP WTO Coverage [gawth.com]
Karma Be Damned!!! (Score:1)
Re:no more taxes (Score:1)
Re:Why is the WTO so bad? (Score:1)