Internet Service Tax Moritorium Set To Expire 163
nelsonjs writes "On November 1, the ban on taxing Internet service is set to expire. The ban was originally implemented in 1998 in order to encourage the proliferation of Net access. The Senate is considering two competing bills to extend the ban: one would extend it for four years and the other would make the ban permanent. Verizon and Google, usually to be found on opposite sides of any question of Net access, are united in lobbying for the permanent tax ban. If neither passes by November 1, prices for Internet service nationwide could jump by as much as 17 percent, according to ISPs."
This comes up periodically... (Score:5, Insightful)
The politicians are unlikely to make the ban (on the tax) permanent - each time the ban is about to expire, they get to look good to their constituents without actually doing anything.
So it'll get extended... again... and then in N years we'll hear another net-centric story propagated by a media wanting our avid attention for politicians who want our unconditional vote.
Move Along.... nothing to really see here...
Extend it...DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfair taxing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Double Dipping (Score:3, Insightful)
This all assumes that you actually paid for that porn in the first place, though.
Don't be so sure... (Score:1, Insightful)
My guess? We're about to see Dem's true colors shine through: TAX IT!
And of course, the people cheering this on are going to be the same ones who want to put health-care decisions for the entire US in the hands of the same government that brought us the TSA.
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that Mitt Romney will be the next president? You remember Mitt, don't you? The Republican who forced the entire population of Massachusetts to buy health insurance or pay a fine, starting with confiscating any tax refund you may get.
You do mean the Republicans, don't you?
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure why this is flame bait, he just pointing out that both sides of the political spectrum have had quacks with horrible ideas (even if they were well meaning). Imho, the only difference in Reps and Dems are the tie colors - both sides have smart people and corrupt/stupid people.
Re:No special deal for internet companies (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you might have conventional sales tax confused with what this article is talking about. Unless the mom and pop diner opened up web service that would then be subject to the tax, they would actually end up with ~%11 savings over a taxed website.
Either that or it has to deal with ISP "service". I didn't read the article, the summary usually provides enough entertainment.
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
That is true. Whereas the Republicans just want to spend it, without taxing it in the first place.
The cost just gets passed on to the next (current) generation. Thanks a bunch, not. Hey, I know, we'll just liquidate and cancel Social Security and cut off Medic[aid/are] to anyone over 65. Carry on.
Re:Extend it...DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, especially since the original bill was passed under Bill Clinton's presidency. Oh, good old Bill such a republican, wasn't he?
Sigh. Yes I am being sarcastic.
it's the same for EVERYONE (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeesh. As has already been pointed out to you, this isn't about sales taxes on the goods that happen to be ordered online. This is about taxing the service you're buying which connects you to the internet. Much like your cable and phone services are already being taxed.
That being said: A small mom-and-pop retailer that takes an order over the phone, or through the mail, or by fax, or off of an auction site, or from their own web site is - JUST LIKE AMAZON - not obligated to collect and remit sales tax if they happen to ship out of state. Conversely, companies like Amazon DO have to collect and remit sales tax if they're shipping into a state where they have a business presence. So, if Amazon operates a warehouse/distribution center in Maryland, then they're on the hook to remit Maryland sales tax on any orders they ship to Maryland addresses.
Very large companies, increasingly, DO have offices, operations, or other "nexus" in more than one state, and are increasingly on the hook to collect such taxes for those state governments. Further, you've got places like California, which has been known to lean on out-of-state retailers to remit CA sales tax whether they have a presence there or not. Their leverage? The tell retailers that if they don't, they'll be blacklisted from any purchasing done by any agency of the CA state government. And while that may not matter to Uncle-Jim's-Fly-Rods-dot-com in Idaho, it definitely matters to retailers that sell office supplies, truck fleet parts, computer hardware, etc. It hits big companies, and the mom-and-pops the same way.
Your example of the diner is a particularly bad one. There is no un-taxed competition shipping competing omlettes and cups of hot coffee in from out of state. If your point is that there are large businesses (in other lines of work) making money by doing business with the residents of a given state, and not collecting sales tax... remember that it's the CONSUMER'S responsibility to pay sales and use taxes on stuff they buy from out of state. Don't like that the sale isn't taxed up front? Don't sweat it... it's the people who live in YOUR state that are then supposed to pay those taxes on the goods they buy from out of state. Otherwise, you've got businesses that aren't even IN your state having to do insane amounts of paperwork with your state government. Some states have sales tax rates that vary by zip code, and which depend on the type of goods being purchased, and which change seasonally. Should every retailer in every state have to keep track of, and remit all of that nonsense to every other state government around the country? Or should your fellow state citizens simply pay up when they buy something big ticket from out of state?
And lastly: how about simply making your state a more attractive place from which to OPERATE a large retailer? That way you get WAY more cash flow into the state coffers... income taxes on the employees, corporate incomes and real-estate taxes, taxes on all of the services and utilities that the company uses in the state, taxes on all of the services and items that the employees consume in that state, taxes on the incomes of all of the third-party vendors and service providers that support the company in your state. What you SHOULD be doing is asking your legislators to find ways to make your local infrastructure and circumstances very attractive to the next Amazon.
Re:Necessities... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Extend it...DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Moral of the story: America, ALWAYS vote on the issues, NEVER based on the letter next to someone's name.
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just imagine if we could get redirect of even 10% of the workforce of various levels of government towards more productive careers building stuff. We wouldn't need illegals* to help build our houses.
And yeah, you tend to have nutjobs on both sides of the spectrum. If nothing else, the moderates aren't as motivated to go through the effort of being elected.
*No problem with immigration, unless it's illegal. Both sides of the issue need to be fixed. Legal immigration needs to be made easier, while deterrance and punishment for illegal immigration need to increase.