Wisconsin Passes Digital Download Tax 327
McGruber writes with news that the State of Wisconsin has passed legislation to extend sales tax to digital downloads. The new law will go into effect on October 1st. Estimates suggest that the 5% tax on "downloads of music, games, books, ring tones and other video entertainment" will bring in $6.7 million annually. "[Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle] has been fighting for the change for years. He and other state officials say it is a matter of fairness: Internet vendors shouldn't have a tax-exempt advantage over Wisconsin's brick-and-mortar retail stores." Similar legislation has been proposed in North Carolina, and we've previously discussed New York's foray into taxing sales made online in addition to downloaded purchases.
How do they enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too hard to ditch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Option 1: Start using PayPal with an out-of-state relative's address
Option 2: Get a PO box over state lines, and open a bank account there while you're at it.
I am curious, though - they expect to make $6.7m per year... how much of that will disappear into enforcement and accounting? Doesn't really seem like there's enough return on it to balance the hordes of pissed-off constituents.
Why now? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Option 4: http://thepiratebay.org/ [thepiratebay.org]
Re:How do they enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the physical presence aspect is affected by this legislation at all. Previously, digital downloads were just not applicable to sales tax in Wisconsin, much like food or medical supplies are not taxable in certain states. If Apple or Amazon don't have a business presence in the state, their stores will probably remain sales tax free.
I'm not sure why these articles are such news. We've been paying sales tax on digital downloads in Washington for as long as I can remember. We have both an Apple (via Apple Stores) and Amazon (headquarters and all) presence too.
If it moves.... (Score:3, Insightful)
A tax on auto insurance? That's a regressive one. Oh, do they want more uninsured drivers on the road? Lovely. I can see how everybody wins with that proposal.
Re:How do they enforce this? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you tax something, you get less of it. This is kindergarden economics.
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Option 5:
Pay the 4cents to keep your local government solvent.
Fine. Do I get representation in WI's legislature? (Score:0, Insightful)
You want to tax digital downloads? Fine. Then give this Texan representation in your legislature. Otherwise, fuck off.
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, this seems strange that you would go as far as to commit tax fraud, but you seem to be against downloading a free copy from file sharers. I am curious; is there a moral reason for this duality (maybe you think it is wrong to not pay an artist but not wrong to not pay the government?), or do you just enjoy thinking up ways to get out of having to do something someone is trying to make you do?
Re:economy (Score:2, Insightful)
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another fish for you to take away tomorrow!"
I guess the governor of Wisconsin has read the Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.
Re:How do they enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do they enforce this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fortunately (Score:3, Insightful)
No taxes on our torrent downloads, either.
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I live in WI, and I say this sucks (Score:2, Insightful)
Hollywood companies are also big enough they can keep their profits in shelter corporations that are in low-tax states instead.
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should a government not be forced to lay people off when the economy is? (sic)
Assuming the missing word in your question is "bad", the answer is that laying off people worsens the already worsening economy. Even conservatives should admit that one of the basic roles of government is to govern (thus the name). A governor, in mechanical terms, regulates an engine from going too fast or too slow. If it slows an already too slow engine, it is not doing its job. Laying workers off is the exact opposite if what government should do during a downturn. Laying them off in a booming economy is best, for they then have the best chances of finding other jobs and continuing to be functioning members of society.
Re:How do they enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that having your withholding adjusted so that you owe instead of get a refund is a good thing right?
Re:That's it -we're fucked: Film at 11. (Score:3, Insightful)
Between this and the recent story about how they're going to require home routers to maintain logs, we're completely fucked. Everything decent about the internet has been shot in the ass.
Fuck, this shit sucks.
Slashdot has been shot...Where?!
Right there...that big gaping shot gun hole called idle.
Re:economy (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties have figured out that the best way to get control is to take advantage of the fact that everybody thinks everybody else is an idiot and cannot be trusted with their own money.
Nobody in their right mind will vote Govt. into taking decision making power over themselves but it's usually acceptable to do it to 'those people'.
The net result of this is that if you are in the under six-figure income bracket you'd probably better get used to the idea that there will soon be a bureaucracy in charge of everything in you life.
If you were capable of making good decisions you'd be wealthier wouldn't you?
Similarly, those of you who are in the over six-figure bracket will get your own bureaucracy to redistribute the wealth. No don't whine. You get your own welfare too.
Everything has to be managed. And, of course, anything not controlled by bureaucrats is not managed.
"FAIR"??? What's fair about taxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
An interesting statement. So, you think it's only "fair" that everything should be taxed? One cold argue that a tax on brick and mortar stores pays all the services the state provides: a road to get to the store, police to watch the store, and... what else does the state provide? For the on-line stores? Would it be fair to make the internet sellers pay for the services only the brick and mortar stores need?
Okay, so the state provides schooling for the poor. But then, why do rich people pay income tax? Isn't that meant to redistribute wealth, to let the poor have the same opportunities the rich had?
Let's put is this way: taxes are never fair. They are an unavoidable evil. Robert Heinlein said it best, "The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys." ("The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", 1966)
WHAT "brick and mortar" stores? (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm, what? We're not talking about selling physical products, we're talking about selling data. Are there any brick and mortar stores in WI that let you come in and pay to download things to your USB drive using a connection at the cash register or something?
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should a government not be forced to lay people off when the economy is? (sic)
Assuming the missing word in your question is "bad", the answer is that laying off people worsens the already worsening economy. Even conservatives should admit that one of the basic roles of government is to govern (thus the name). A governor, in mechanical terms, regulates an engine from going too fast or too slow. If it slows an already too slow engine, it is not doing its job. Laying workers off is the exact opposite if what government should do during a downturn. Laying them off in a booming economy is best, for they then have the best chances of finding other jobs and continuing to be functioning members of society.
The US governments' job is not to govern the economy or the job market other than to set rules of fair play among the various participants.
When the government gets involved any further in these things politicians *will* seize on it as an opportunity for self-enrichment and means to gather power and influence for themselves and their political party and ideology at the cost of the people, our freedoms, and society as a whole.
That's largely, if not entirely, why the US is in trouble now.
Strat
And will Wisconsin get Free Health Care ? (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly will Wisconsin do with this tax revenue? Will they now start providing their ALL of their citizens with Free Health Care?
I suspect not. What exactly CANT wisconsin do that they're already doing with their current taxes?
If we're going to tax our citizens more, then lets provide them with more services!
When i'm buying something, i want to know what i'm getting, and it better be worth it.
Wiki France.
Re:Not too hard to ditch... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure the government will start laying off policemen when organized crime starts laying off criminals, and laying off teachers when families start laying off children...
Re:Complaining about taxation is valid (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, explain how we can keep adding so many government jobs and not expect the burden to become too much?
Cherrypicking statistics is easy. Let's put those numbers in perspective
Total goverment employment growth 1997-2007: 12.3%
Total population growth 1997-2007: 12.7% (Using 267,000,000 and 301,000,000)
Sure, the goverment is employing more people now. Oh, dear I wonder why. Could it be because there are more people in the country than there used to be.
We are creating more non wealth producing jobs than wealth producing jobs.
Ah damn. Another one who thinks that the goverment doesn't produce wealth. I guess you are now thinking about claiming that the goverment doesn't earn money, it just taxes the private sector. That is the standard propaganda used. The statement is literally true, but is a simple deception.
Using that incorrect reasoning, no private business makes any money either. Because every single one has to get their money from other companies in the private sector. One company getting more money means that the remaining companies gets less. A wealth transfer as some like to call it. And no, taxing is no different than private companies charging for services. It is just that anyone living in a country has a life long contract with the Goverment business. It sucks to be in such a contract. But that is the price for not having your own private army.
All of this of course have nothing to do with wealth creation. Wealth is created by workers who do productive work, farmers, factory workers, miners, teachers, policemen, road workers. Some work in the public sector, and some in the private sector. There are of course also many mostly unproductive or even contraproductive jobs in both sectors.
So we have this big slow down, with many private sector jobs lost, yet government keeps growing
That one is simple to understand. Firing someone costs a private company nothing, but it costs the goverment in a loss of production that can no longer be taxed. By employing the citizen instead of letting him go unemployed the goverment creates work that can be taxed.
As long as the value of the work created is greater than the surrounding expenses of employing, it is a win for the goverment. This of course only applies as long as the person in question don't have a large chance of getting employed in the private sector, because in that case you have to start comparing the relative worths of the private and public sector jobs.
We are simply running amok. The real problem with government paid jobs is that are nearly impossible to do away with them.
And yet the republicans cried when the jobs the stimulus package created temporary jobs. That of course was the whole point. Creating temporary jobs in a recession to avoid having labor go unused while not creating permanent jobs that are difficult to make away with.
If you want to yell at wastage, yell at the bailouts (bank, auto industry, mortage). Those are about throwing money at bad investments which is almost always a bad idea.
Re:If it moves.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Uninsured driver" coverage is mandatory in Maryland and Pennsylvania. You mean it's not mandatory elsewhere? Surprising. What happens if you get hit by an uninsured person? Tough luck?
To borrow a quote from former president Andrew Jackson:
"The Supreme Court has made its ruling. Now let's see them enforce it," as he proceeded to ignore the court entirely because he considered the ruling unconstitutional. Likewise, Wisconsin can pass any law they want, but I am NOT going to collect sales tax or file a Wisconsin return on my sales. Fuck em. I live 1000 miles away, and I am Not subject to a foreign legislature.
No taxation without representation.
No subjugation to foreign governments halfway across the continent. MY government and MY representatives are in Harrisburg, not whereever the fuck wisconsin's legislature lives. I will not comply with illegitimate, nonrepresentative laws.
Re:economy (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes because we all know that a privately run fire department would be a much better use of tax payer's dollars. Or a privatized police force is the best use of a community's resources.
Also city streets should be an amalgam of competing enterprises trying to win your daily commuting nickles.
Needless to say I disagree with your assertion that EVERY enterprise performs better when exposed to competitive pressure.
Re:"FAIR"??? What's fair about taxes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty rates, general reported happiness, leisure and vacation time, broadband availability... virtually any measure of "standards of living" one could come up with, except perhaps "number of dollars taken home in one's paycheck".
Now, Mr. Citation Needed, the ball is in your court. Where's all the destruction caused by the power to tax? What horrors in Europe or Canada are we avoiding by having lower taxes here in the US? What horrors in the US could we avoid by moving to a place without a functioning government to destroy us with taxes, like Somalia or Afghanistan?
Re:"FAIR"??? What's fair about taxes? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or yet another option (which politicians also seem to forget), is to cut wasteful spending!!
Cut the govt. back to basic services, shed the waste and I think they could drop the need for a lot of tax revenue.