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."
Double Dipping (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This all assumes that you actually paid for that porn in the first place, though.
that's mor-A-torium (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
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: (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: (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 peop
Re:Don't be so sure... (Score:5, Informative)
Are you sure? http://www.c-span.org/images/2004vote/bushkerry3_200.jpg [c-span.org]
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not get into the whole "smaller government" thing that Republicans continually tout. That would be heresy to point out the HUGE government expansion the Republicans have done, not to mention the Big Brother-esque, all-knowing-all-seeing spying programs.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Moral of the story: America, ALWAYS vote on the issues, NEVER based on the letter next to someone's name.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just imagine if we
Re: (Score:2)
That's because perceptions of the today's Repubicans, have not caught up the reality that they are NOT the Reps. of old. The Republican party used to be more for small limited government, less taxation, etc. However, for some reason, today's Rep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Clinton was a better Republican than Bush (Score:2, Interesting)
Sigh. Yes I am being sarcastic.
Fiscally, the only thing that Bush has done that could be considered Republican was to lower the capital gains tax. However, Clinton himself lowered the capital gains tax, but also kept spending in check, balanced the budget, promoted a sound dollar. If Hillary would actually be as good fiscally as her hu
Re: (Score:2)
Currently the US is in a bit of a financial mess, taxes need to be raised and spending cut to deal with it, the dollar needs to be stabilised and inflationary pressures reduced. To do these things will harm the economy and increase the real cost of living *and* the tax burden, so you do that for 4 years, US finances look OK again but the voters will hate it. So after 4/8 years of hard work and belt tightening they will vote for t
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm not American. And yes I know the difference between the legislative and executive branches. However your presidents have veto power and they DO use it. The fact that Clinton did not veto the bill that established a moratorium on internet tax shows that he wasn't against it. In fact, he supported it at the time, since he was all for anything that "built" the internet. And since he was a democrat, I refute the argument of t
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you arn't an American, because if you are then you need to take a remedial civics class.
Bills come out of the House and Senate. Congress makes the laws, Congress passes the laws, and in 1997 Congress was controlled by the Republicans.
But the president still has to sign it, unless congress overrides the veto.
FalocnRe: (Score:2)
Democrats tax & spend.
Republicans borrow & spend,
At least for the Dems, they know that the bills have to be paid. Either way, though, it's that common "spend" that needs to be looked after before any real progress will happen.
Re: (Score:2)
The politicians CANNOT make the ban (on the tax) permanent. Any law automatically supersedes any previously written laws on a given issue, given proper jurisdiction (States cannot override Federal laws, though the Feds CAN override State laws).
Theoretically, they could ban internet taxes forever tomorrow. And the day after tomorrow, impose a $1/bit tax on internet traffic. And, lo! There would be a $1/bit tax on the internet. Until a
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Move along... nothing to really see here...
Re: (Score:2)
That way lawmakers would spend their time on real issues, instead of parading in front of constituents w/ silly things they spend their free time on, such as Schiavo & Foley.
Re: (Score:2)
They also look shitty if they allow the tax to fall into place, unless they were going to start maintaining the network fiber themselves, which might not be a bad thing... Depending on a lot of course
Misnomer (Score:3, Informative)
Extend it...DUH! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they clearly don't care so why would anyone else care what they think?
True, true. Why should anyone care about a demographic that in 1996 was only a majority of US voters. Democracy is just sooo 20th century :-)
." it just screams out at me because the /truth/ is "80% of the Americans /that voted/ voted for . . ." and the difference is really very important.
/actually/ boast more than 20% public support back o
What I am trying to get at is that whenever I see assertions of the kind "80% of Americans voted for . .
As an example, the current president is probably lucky if he can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
40%? The approval rating for Congress right now is about 25-30%! That's worse than the President's!
I'm not referring to current polls but rather to election results. It's an intended consequence of the system we have that we only sample the public opinion every couple of years.
Of course, even if you look at actual election results I'm probably being overly optimistic. Not having the time to actually look up the exact numbers, let's assume that congressional elections have 50% turnout (this is a bit high?) and that you need a 67% supermajority to change the Constitution (there are probably complications
Re: (Score:2)
What I am trying to get at is that whenever I see assertions of the kind "80% of Americans voted for . . ." it just screams out at me because the /truth/ is "80% of the Americans /that voted/ voted for . . ." and the difference is really very important.
How is it important? If you don't vote, you kind of voluntarily opting out of the game. Do we consider the testing scores of drop outs when evaluating a school? No. If you don't vote, it means your opinion isn't even worth enough to motivate you to some very small action. If you don't put enough stock in your opinion to do something about it, it can't be too important.
As brought up lower down, there are valid, and temporary, reasons some people CAN'T vote, which are completely separate from people who
Re: (Score:2)
How is it important?
It is important because the whole point of modern democracy is to have a form of government that gets its legitimacy from a majority of the people. Once this is gone (e.g. the shots are called by only 20%) then the entire basis of the system is falling apart. It doesn't matter if the 50% no-shows are lazy, or disillusioned, or disenfranchised, or whatever. What matters is that the government isn't representative of the population. A government that isn't representative of the population quite simply isn't
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that the current American democracy IS representative of the population. The people who don't vote made a choice not to count in decisions (for whatever tragic reason). They don't want to have a say, and thus don't really count, by choice. Your not going to get me to say this is a good thing, or disagree that the whole system is falling apart, though.
But this is largely irrelevant. Throwing blame around i
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that the current American democracy IS representative of the population. The people who don't vote made a choice not to count in decisions (for whatever tragic reason). They don't want to have a say, and thus don't really count, by choice.
You do realise that what you're basically saying here is that people who don't vote aren't actually people?
I'm just saying that these people who don't want a voice, shouldn't expect to be heard.
But that isn't the point. It's not that they have a need to be heard - clearly being heard doesn't interest them. The problem is that /we/ need to hear them and them refusing to talk to us is a serious problem.
Even if they were to start an armed rebellion (something that would surprise me, since we're dealing with apathy, not the best precondition for revolution),
Perhaps, but then this is not the only type of calamity that can strike an apathic "democracy". Consider that we currently have an extremely wealthy drug cartel that is the cause of much organ
Re: (Score:2)
Never claimed that, I just don't think its possible for the rest of us (voters) to possibly give them a voice if they don't want one. How can we presume to act on the behalf of someone who has no opinions (or don't find them valid enough to act up), they are by nature unknowable. I do think, on a real level, they get what they ask for, and don't really see this as a bad thing. Perhaps when thing
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because many people consider voting to not be a right but a responsibility, and the "right to vote" is tied to the "right to complain". If you didn't vote, shut up and swallow the pill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In EU we pay VAT on services and products, so we do sign up for $40/month plan and pay $55 after the taxes. But somehow our Internet is still faster and cheaper than the US one.
Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. The question is ra
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.
Well why tax anything? Why tax income, or sales, or gasoline, or any of the other million categories of items that are taxed? The bottom line is, the government needs money, and it's probably a lot easier to get it by nickel-and-diming people with taxes on everything they pay for than by raising income taxes or some other high-profile tax. Of course this simplistically assumes that all tax revenue just goes into a big pile to be used for anything, but...
Also, in response to the other part of your post,
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you don't understand my intention. If you tax al
Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet. (Score:2)
A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
The question is rather: why on Earth tax it in the first place.
Because the money grubbing politicians want to tax anything and everything they can.
FalconRe:Internet tax definitely won't ruin teh Internet (Score:2)
That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.
Sure, they might not be able to play HD DVD over the Internet at that speed, but I hardly consider waiting a bit more to download your movie something that can wreck socie
Re: (Score:2)
A tax may not harm the internet but it can mean some will lose their access. Right now some can barely afford access but with a tax they no longer will be able to afford it.
That's not true. Any US citizen can afford 20 USD for his internet connection, can't he. Dial-up and the slower broadband connections still count as "access" in my eye.
Some can most certainly lose their internet connection it they have to pay more for it. I guess you've never heard of the poor.
Falcon
Unfair taxing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your example is poor, anyhow, since City Jake doesn't have $20/month access, he has $50/month because he prefers the speed. His livelihood is based on the net (or he couldn't afford to spend 12 hours a day on it) and if he used a slower line, he'd s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps because it's more expensive to provide that internet service to Joe?
Perhaps because the net benefit to society of cheaper access for urban consumers is greater than the benefit of cheaper access for rural consumers?
Many 'economic development zones' have a reduced tax burden to encourage businesses to move there. Why should it be any different for residential zones where development is wa
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with the rest of your comment, I don't really understand how you pay more for your property to live in a less-populated area. Certainly land costs less in less-populated areas as a nearly universal rule.
It's interesting, a few years ago I would have found the idea of taxing internet service to be totally outrageous in a 'how dare they stick their fi
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the cost of land, it's also the cost of the building, etc. If you look at median (or even mean) housing costs, you'll find that a lot of suburban and rural suburban areas are far higher than urban areas. Yes, there is more land, bigger homes, etc, but our purchasing choices are limited by what's on the market. Since mini
infrasctructure (Score:2)
to the extent that the government is responsible for building and maintaining that network
The government is NOT responsible for building and maintaining the network. It is the responsibility of the providers to build and maintain their own part of it. Of course this hasn't stopped the government from giving these businesses billions of taxpayer dollars to buildout the network. Since this is the case it should be the corporations that received money who should be taxed. They should also be made to hav
property (Score:2)
I'm in favor of tax incentives for people to live in urban areas. I'm willing to pay a surcharge to live in a less-populated area (which I do, by paying higher property taxes, and by paying more for my property).
You made a mistake, property cost more in urban areas, not less. And since the value is higher urban landowners pay more in property taxes.
What I wanted to address was that the taxation is upon the cash transaction, not on the services provided.
Since the government does not provide the ser
Re: (Score:2)
I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bed
Re: (Score:2)
I live in NJ. More urban areas have deifinitely lower median and mean home prices. Yes, you get more physical property in the more rural areas, BUT it doesn't really matter, since your housing choices are limited by what's in inventory -- never mind the fact that those living in urban areas also gain intangible benefits like reduced commuting time. Example: three bedroom row house in Irvington, NJ (Newark suburb, very urban) might cost 300,000. Very small three bedroom house in High Bridge NJ (much more rur
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you're in an entirely different market... and comparing prices across different markets get very tricky...
I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors. Furtherm
Re: (Score:2)
I think NJ is a bit of an anomaly, but municipalities are the only property tax assessors.
The state of New Jersey doesn't tax property? Nor do the counties, or the equivalent? I didn't know that.
Also, tax rates are not uniform even within a municipality -- many use a factoring system where property value is only one part of the tax assessment equation. IE, property value != assessment value for taxes.
What other factors do they use? It seems property value would be the best seeing as how the value
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. State taxes are sales and income (for individuals. not sure for corps, as I'm not incorporated in NJ). No county property tax either.
As for other factors, I believe dwelling type makes a difference -- condos will get a different rate than detached homes. Also, some municipalities may vary rate based upon what % of the property is built on (independent of land value, a house that is 40% covered by buildings will be assessed higher than a lot that is 5%
Re: (Score:2)
Seems fair, since City Jake is heavily subsidizing Farmer Joe through his taxes.
does government need the money? (Score:2)
There is a case for it, too; the government needs money, badly.
The government wouldn't need anymore revenue if it stayed small. If the feds hadn't got so big federal income wouldn't be needed so much. The 4% income tax President Lincoln had would be plenty. And btw when Lincoln raised the income tax to $4 to pay for the Civil War people didn't like it, I wonder what they'd think of the tax now. With low federal income tax cities, counties, and states could raise property tax. Then between property t
Turning Point of Federalism (Score:2)
But not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B. I'm not saying this is right, or I agree with it, but it is the case; and saying "Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help. We're in the hole - time to get out. You know, if you have the ability to make the sacrifices necessary.
It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, thou
Re: (Score:2)
But not the federal government; and note that progressively over the years voters have voted for a larger government - and one that goes to war to the tune of $900B.
Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.
"Oh, we should have kept a small government and not racked up so much debt" is never going to help.
Ignoring history won't help either.
It's interesting you mention Lincoln and the Civil War, though; that is generally regarded at the point in our history wherein th
Re: (Score:2)
Many were against going to war but like puppets the media downplayed them.
Everyone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed. Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance. Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or whatever else does not help.
Ignoring history won't help either.
I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was ignoring history. On the contrary; I'm embraci
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone must take responsibility, however, or it will never be fixed.
That's the problem, a lot of people won't take the responsibility.
Regardless of the actions of the media, there was a vote, and the vote came down to electing people with a particular stance.
Although people still make wrong choices when they know a lot of the facts, it makes it harder to make a wise decision when you don't have the pertinent facts.
Divorcing yourself from that reality by claiming it was the media's fault, or what
No special deal for internet companies (Score:1, Interesting)
Why should the mom-and-pop diner that ekes out a living by selling coffee and donuts be forced to comply with the onerous burden of collecting and remitting taxes on every cup of joe they sell while the multi-billion dollar sale companies like Amazon get a free ride?
Long time ago it was considered too difficult for small interne
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A valid point, perhaps. Except that the article is in regards to additional taxes put on Internet services, and has nothing to do with taxing goods sold across the Internet. This is, essentially, an effort to hold down any additional fees that might be assessed for Internet access. Similar to keeping all the odd state and federal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And as it turns out, there is a reason that you don't have to pay taxes for goods from another state.
Not that something like The Constitution of the United States of America has really mattered in reality for a long time, but I quote:
So, no it doesn't really have anything to do with supporting anybody over anybody else, just respect for the law.
Re: (Score:2)
So you suggest that in order to "fight taxes across the board" we should accept a tax on internet services, since everything else is taxed? I have a pastor friend who is looking for help with a new church, and I think we just found the right candidate for the job...
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: (Score:2)
Amazon does not get a free ride: they have to charge and remit taxes in any state in which they have a physical presence. If you live in say, Nebraska and an Amazon vendor has a physical presence in NE and you purchase from them, you will be cha
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make much sense because most brick and mortars have store fronts these days. In reality, if internet companies want to avoid sales tax, they'll
Shot in the arm for failed municipal wifi, etc.? (Score:2)
Also for sites that encourage listing 'free' hotspots and help you with establishing your own. Too many to list here - Google is your friend, (uh, if you're logged out and using Noscript etc.)
Finally, if you're near a border, or have a rich friend that's just a little too far away, you ca
There is no such thing as a "free" gov. service (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of big gov. or taxes, (as a self-employed consultant living in a high-tax country - believe me, I'm REALLY not!)
Like you, I've worked with gov. agencies and I'm pretty sure I'd still have my own ISP - like my kids go to private schools.
Yet I accept that some of my tax dollars are and should be used to help people less fortunate than I am. Plus, I'm sick of having to re-buy access, at exorbitant rates and with indifferent
Re:Shot in the arm for failed municipal wifi, etc. (Score:2)
Because we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.
the poor (Score:2)
Because we all know the most important thing that poor folks need is internet access. You do realize that they already have this access if they chose to go to a library.
Hell YES!, The poor can get just as much use out of the internet as someone who can afford net access. Heck they can even use the net to find a job, or a better paying job, just like those who can afford it. I knew homeless people who had a cellphone just for this reason. Sure some may be able to use the library, but if you're looking
Internet Tax Freedom Act (Score:2)
Wikipedia article regarding the tax-free Internet act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act [wikipedia.org]
What is the tax for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know what these taxes are for?
Re: (Score:2)
They cover the cost of the government agencies monitoring all Internet traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember the argument when the gaming boats came to Missouri that their funds would create "300 Million in new revenue a year for education in the state". (No
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead big companies get PAID to extend then monopolies to areas that they will operate at a LOSS on MY dime.
What's really bad is that the telcos and cablecos were paid to buildout but didn't. And now they're crying because they can't afford to.
FalconHey idiots and non-readers (Score:4, Informative)
Drug Dealers (Score:2)
Doesn't make sense (Score:2)
tax? (Score:2)
and now maybe americans may have to pay taxes for their internetaccess ???? you mean... like for every other service/product ?
crybabies
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
That's pretty much everybody. I didn't include satellite only because I've never had a satellite connection, and therefore I am unfamiliar with whether there are taxes included on that bill.
Why on earth would you want to pay more tax?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, thats because the local cable company is HAPPY to sell you cable internet without requiring you to pay for cable tv.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However the situation today is quite different - many people have broadband through ADSL lines, a lot of these people have even gotten rid of their regular phone lines to use VOIP, and are therefore not paying any tax at all on their voice/data communication services (unless they have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And why should it? So, out of whose hearts/pockets to you suggest that it SHOULD happen?
87% of Americans live within a 20 mile radius of a major urban hub
And it still costs a fortune to run fiber more than a few hundred yards. And the laws of physics mean that DSL doesn't get you anywhere close to that 20-miles-away guy. So there is a MUCH larger layer of infrastructure that has to flow out, mile by mile, all the way through t
Re:Back to 'normal' (Score:5, Funny)