Internet Tax Moratorium Over? 209
clawson writes "Looks like Congress just can't resist it anymore.
This story, mentioned in The Naked PC e-zine, is in ComputerWorld.
Yeah, right, the tax will go to fund teacher salaries. This is pretty lame when the current congressional mindset is pretty much doing what it can to ensure that there aren't TOO many smart people in the future, but lots of semi-literate, idiotic consumeroids."
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:2)
BTW, Maryland (where I live now) *theoretically* has the power to levy sales taxes on items bought out of state and shipped here, no matter how you ordered those goods. Now and then a state official rants about this, but then someone saner realizes that enforcement would cost more than any revenue enforcement could possibly generate and the idea dies down for a year or two.
If you want to see a *real* tax rip, check hotel taxes. Tourists don't vote, and locals don't usually stay in local hotels, so they're easy to levy without getting flak. They're over 10% in some places, including some states and localities that have low or no sales or income taxes -- and no, you don't get to duck the tax if you reserve the room online.
Re:Is this double taxation (Score:1)
...and taxed yet again if you use that money to buy something
...and taxed again if you leave that something to your children after you die
...and taxed again if they sell it and make money
Many people will be paying taxes on their income long after they've died.
I'm not averse to paying taxes in general, there's a lot of things government can do better than me. What I do resent is the absolute duplicity, misdirection and outright lying the government uses to hide how much they are really taking. It started with Income Tax withholding in the 40's and gets worse every year.
Federal Taxes to replace State?! (Score:1)
Local sales taxes (state or city) serve to benefit the municipality in which the item was purchased. If the state is unable to collect, given the prohibition on regulating interstate commerce, that would be the inherent problem, but replacing those lost local taxes with a federal tax does very little to help the state. Yes, some small part of the money would eventually "trickle down" to the local level, but on the whole, the state loses out. The consumer loses out too, by being penalized for seeking better prices and more convenient shopping. Finally, the Internet merchant loses out when unable to compete with local brick-and-mortars. It's a classic Federalist approach which only impedes fair trade and open markets.
Of course, all of the above presumes that sales taxes are a Good Thing (tm) for local municipalities. Here in NYC, sales go through the roof during the few weeks of the year that sales tax on clothing is suspended; the rest of the time, consumers simply cross the bridge to shop in New Jersey. There's no clearer demonstration that sales taxes only hurt the economy.
If the government wants/needs to tax my income, fine. It's got to get its money from somewhere. I have no problem with high income tax in order to provide needed communal services. But to punish someone for keeping the economic flow in motion runs contrary to all logic.
- Richie
Re:Don't you just love this kind of thing? (Score:2)
But there could be some real nice benefits from an internet tax. The money raised could pay for the printing and distribution of Ten Commandment Posters! Or better yet, it can go to purchasing new science books that don't mention evolution! And if they do increase teacher salaries, then the NEA can raise union dues so that they can give more campaign contributions to the politicians. It's a win-win solution!
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
And we don't derive rights from Constitution neither - it only guarantees already-existing rights (subtopic: 10th article of Bill of Rights could be construed as preventing even constitutional amendments which remove rights).
Primary ostensible purpose of salestax is to retire bonds. In many cases the shell game of fund accounting allow local governments to plead empty pockets with millions or billions tucked away under the hat.
It's always acceptable to question motives of those advocating of taxation...don't you think?
Re:Yeah, a little screwy... (Score:1)
Internet Tax Bill (SR 1433) (Score:1)
Y'all have GOT to pay MORE attention !
This bill was introduced on 07/26/99,
and reported on 08/02/99.
Also, it doesn't JUST tax Internet sales,
It takes the SAME piece from ALL
interstate commerce. Order by phone,
by mail, by internet, by carrier pigeon,
etc..
Like I've always heard: There's not much
we'll stand for, but we'll SIT through anything !
Re:Enforcement (Score:2)
The states that levy sales taxes also have enforcement divisions, and from time to time you do find a business that has been cheating. (Since generally businesses reimburse the government in lump sum payments representing the tax for many, many transactions, it is always tempting for a tenuous business to hold back some of that cash for itself -- something like adjusting withholding. You end up owing the same amount of tax; it's just a matter of whether you've paid it or not.)
Right now, the government DOES have the right to come in and examine your books, if they suspect tax cheating. So this really has little "internet" relevance.
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
-B
Re:Wrong, you're confused b/c this is old news (Score:1)
Re:Enforcement (Score:1)
When a brick-and-mortar business reports a certain amount of income coming from cash transactions, the government takes those reciepts on faith, unless the auditor has a reason to suspect fraud.
Unneeded and Unjustified tax (Score:1)
BTW. If your in Atl Senator Coverdale opposes this tax
Ned
House Republicans 860-240-8700
House Democrats 860-240-850
Senate Republicans 860-240-8800
Senate Democrats 860-240-8600
Re:Don't you just love this kind of thing? (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Unconstitutional (Score:1)
Just a thought - anyone know for sure?
"Life is too short to take seriously"
Re:The tax is stupid and so are you (Score:1)
Not generically. Rather, I claim it's not uncommon. In teaching there's little reward even if you work hard. In tech fields the rewards are high even if you hardly work.
Merit based pay might fix this, however so far the people who have proposed this for education want to base merit on really stupid things, like norm reference test score results.
> the teachers work less than half of the days of the year and go home long before 5:00 PM
... long before 5:00 PM so they can cook dinner for their family and then stay up until 2am grading papers. (speaking, again, from the teachers I know personally).
It's been pointed out previously that working only part of the year is a myth. Tons of preparation goes into being ready for the school year.
I like it... (Score:1)
Pffft
Is this double taxation (Score:1)
George
Congressmen, their egos, and the Net (Score:1)
To paraphrase an FCC spokesman:
The Internet is too big, too important, for Congress not to want to regulate it just for the sake of regulating it, simply because most Congressmen have egos that are too big to comprehend something such as the Net existing without them having some kind of control over it.
Furthermore, Congressmen know almost nothing about the Net. Most of them are too old to think in terms of the Net, and even if they're not, they're not ever going to learn enough about it to avoid making stupid decisions about it.
Case in point: How many times do you think Fritz F$%#ing Hollings has pulled up a website? It doesn't matter if it's him, Orrin Hatch, or Ted Kennedy, the answer's still going to be the same - squat.
They're listening to lobbies that, by sheer signal-to-noise ratio, deemphasize the importance of cyberspace (such as the AARP, the NRA, and large business interests like agriculture and King Oil), and ultra-conservative constituents who are more worried about the potential of pornography to harm their children.
They specifically DO NOT listen to 18-35 year olds who may or may not be cyber-sympathetic because only about 9% of those people actually VOTE in the elections that get them their jobs.
And like your favorite upper management executive, knowing too much about any one thing obscures the "Big Picture" vision that made them such shining leaders in the first place, even when that one thing is to our society like factories were to their grandfathers'.
The only way anything's going to change is if people who know something (about how beautiful and important is the Net) actually hold politicians accountable at the ballot box, not only for sensible policy about the Net, but for more than a casual knowledge of the Net. And if there are no politicians who can meet that qualification, to BECOME ONE.
It frosts me neverending how many cake-eating artistes there are in my town who are my age and actually have sensible political insights, yet do nothing but bitch and complain. Meanwhile, I turn out for every election, vote my convictions (those of a free thinking 30-something who considers the Net extremely important and realizes that schools and transpo must be funded to function), and get my ASS handed to me every November 20th by all those semi-literate consumeroids someone mentioned a while back.
I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir (at least, I damn well better be), but picking out some half-dead Net tax bill sponsored by some half-dead redneck Senator and then bitching about it is such a supreme waste of time.
Instead, I recommend that each of us harasses and otherwise beats on ten of our young buddies until they show us their voter registration cards. Then we follow them to the polls in November (forcefully, if need be), and make sure they vote their convictions, whatever they may be. Until that starts happening a LOT, America is going to look less and less like we'd like it to.
_______________________________________
Moritorium schmoritorium (Score:2)
One More Reason (Score:1)
Enjoy the winfall now, because what we have now is almost certain to crash down if we continue the things we live with today.
Re:Another useless piece of legislature. (Score:1)
I am going to have to smack you.
Congress is in Recess now (Score:1)
Figures (Score:1)
How can your government do that? (Score:1)
Any other government in the world having the similar tax?
The Powerful can be dishonorable with impunity (Score:1)
What Congress gives, Congress can take away. This capriciousness without consequences is the definition of True Power.
The three-year moratorium on new Internet tax may end prematurely if a new bill is passed
Don't you just love this kind of thing? (Score:2)
pay teachers now? I don't know.
If they aren't paying for teachers now, this law
would allow them to start. And you know what
happens when the feds put money into anything,
they start to control it.
If only we could vote!
It's for the children! Won't you help?
Kind of like the line the state govt. fed us about
the lottery. The money will help the schools!
Sheeple
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:1)
Introduction
I attend Southwest Missouri State University [smsu.edu], which started life as Missouri Teachers' College or similar. Consequently, we have a pretty large Elementary Education contingent on campus, and I spent plenty of time in lower-level general education classes with them.
Now, I make no claims to speak for everyone. However, I'd have to say that the E-Ed. group was, as a whole, the ditziest, least educated, and generally dumbest group around.
A Personal Example
As a non-traditional student, I live off-campus and work full-time to provide for myself. At one point, I was spending my evenings and nights behind the front desk of a local motel (0) - many of them with an E-Ed. major, "Jenny". She was a very sweet and kind girl, but as dumb as the proverbial box of rocks. Dim. Slow. Whatever; she was it. Anyway, I helped her with a lot of her homework, because motel work isn't exactly the most intellectually stimulating thing you can find yourself doing. Unfortunately, neither was said homework. I'd swear on a stack of Bibles that her pre-exam study sheet for "Geography for Educators" class was a U.S. map with blanks for you to write in the states and their capitals.
Jenny was struggling.
Yep, that little exercise you whipped out in what, 3rd grade?, was almost her undoing.
On one occasion, another co-worker ("Mindy") was helping Jenny with her math homework, when suddenly J. started getting upset. "Well, just because you're some kind of genius doesn't mean that I can't be smart, too", says she. What had Mindy done? She made a practice worksheet of fractional arithmetic (you know, 1/2 + 1/4, 2/3 x 3/8, etc.). Mindy was so surprised that Jenny was completely stumped, that she couldn't help but to start laughing.
I thought that maybe Jenny was just a slow learner, until she graduated with a 3.8x GPA (out of 4) - on the Dean's list, and all. She wasn't a slow student; she was one of the star performers.
Conclusion
As I said, I full well expect others' experiences to be different than mine. (2) The above are just what I've seen first-hand. I fully believe that at least one school is slapping degrees on the dumbest students on campus, and these slow-burners are then going out and teaching our children. I don't have a teaching degree, but I'm confident enough in myself (especially compared to some others) that I plan to home-school my children.
Refs
(0) Which is actually not bad work, if you're more interested in people-watching and being alone with your schoolbooks than you are in a large paycheck.
(1) Disclaimer - I have no interest in arguing my opinions, for that reason.
So what happens... (Score:1)
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
/.
Re:Costs of schools (Score:1)
No, YOU check YOUR constitution (Score:1)
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Re:Don't you just love this kind of thing? (Score:2)
They fed us the same line when they pushed through horse and dog racing. "This time for sure" they would raise enough money to keep their promises. Until the horse tracks went belly-up (leaving the taxpayers on the line to pay the bonds).
Then they fed us the same line when they pushed through slot machines at the horse tracks (to bail them out) and riverboat gambling.
We still aren't seeing the money go where they promised it. What has happened? All the money seems to go to construction companies, vendors and advertising agencies, all of whom are owned by political cronies.
All of the "economic development" money seems to go to either big companies that use extortion techniques to get it ("either we get money or we move our plant" "either we get money or we will locate our locate our new plant somewhere else"), or startups that are owned by political cronies that go out of business as soon as the grant money dries up (after spending most of the money on executive salaries and "consulting" fees).
State sponsored gambling has definitely brought out government at its worst here. Gambling in general is only a win for an area when it can bring in significant tourist dollars (like it does for Nevada and New Jersey) to offset all the problems it causes in-state. Its a total pipe-dream that gambling will ever turn a midwestern ag state into a tourist draw, so it is a major losing proposition here.
I'm not anti-gambling in general, or on principle, but it sure isn't delivering on its promises here.
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
If a company has a web site in Canada, but operates in the US, how do you collect taxes from them? The sale, in traditional terms, took place it Canada.
I agree that money needs to be generated, and it's NOT pleasent, but to try to tax something like online sales is silly. The medium is international, and NOT simply the US..
Stop Spending $$$ on Stupid Shit (Score:1)
Re:Give to the rich. Take from the poor. (Score:1)
I'm not rich, but I'd put "paying less taxes" in the Good Thing column.
And I've still never had a non-liberal explain how a "regressive" (1) tax hurts the poor/unemployed more than the rich/employed.
(1) Regressive - flat, constant, equal, fair. Pick one or more: in this case, they all apply.
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:1)
>Then you've got the inflexibility of the job itself. No vacation time (aside from when everyone else is on vacation), limited sick time, and few real freedoms during the day (can't skip out early for lunch, for example, limits on phone calls, and so on).
>In NY, I believe you need at least a masters in education before you can take the teaching exam.
At my former school, teachers worked approximately 200 days a year( 180 school + conferences ) which means they get 165 days off a year. The starting salary is 30k yr + benefits for a half year's work. In NY you only need a teaching certificate, which simply requires taking the test( most people have 4 years of college ), you don't need a masters. As for the priveledges, I manage a restaurant and I'd love all weekends off( fact is, it's been since 1994 since I had a full weekend off ), summers off, all holidays off, paid medical, etc. I get 55 hour weeks, ignorant people who've never washed dishes and need to be taught, limited sicktime, no phone calls, can't leave early, etc and I get paid less than these teachers do( in addition to working on my comp eng degree ) for their half a year's worth of work.
Re:Yeah, a little screwy... (Score:1)
Re:Violation of 10th Ammendment (Score:1)
Go screw yourself you stupid moron (Score:1)
And during those 8 hour days, they don't get to leave the campus - have to be on duty almost the whole time, and are usually busy with something or another during their "break" and planning time...and since they don't actually get to do any of the work preparing for their classes while at work, they have to spend a lot of (personal) time at home doing this work.
Where the hell do you get your "facts"?
The only fact I've seen is that you are proof that education needs some work.
Re:Is this double taxation (Score:1)
Forbes is promoting. Mr Forbes wants a flat income
tax and when asked about lost revenues he talks
about some sort of VAT like the Europeans got
screwed with. The VAT is the biggest shaft
a government can do to the population as you
get taxed on anything you buy or do.
People shouldn't be too concerned about this
one at this time for a couple of reasons.
The elections are very close and congressmen don't
want to be easy targets at the next elections
since they know that people are alergic to taxes.
As for double taxation, if that ever happens
you should realize that there are precedents
to that. Look in Canada for instance, they have
a federal tax called T.P.S. which is about 7.5%
and a provincial tax T.V.Q. which is about 7.5%
First the federal tax is calculated and you
add the amount to the tax. Then you calculate
the provincial tax on that.
Even if we were to get that stupid 5% tax we
would still be ahead of Europeans and Canadians
who pay 17% and 15% VAT on products and services.
We would still have among the lowest taxes
in the world.
This tax isn't likely to go anywhere, the moron
who presents the tax project is in the minority.
I don't think he has much support among his
fellow democrats, let alone among the republicans.
Re:Costs of schools (Score:1)
Re:Something to look at (Score:1)
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
Indeed, the government did not have the right to levy income taxes until congress passed and the states approved the 16th amendment:
This was approved in 1913. I'm afraid you're a bit behind the times. Nothing about taxes needing to be "voluntary."
My opinion: Down with sales taxes, from federal, state, or local governments, in stores real or virtual. They take a larger chunk out of the pocketbooks of people who spend more, and people with lower incomes have to spend a larger portion of their income. Progressive income taxes are a fairer method of taxation.
taxes (Score:1)
beer (Score:1)
Now _there's_ somebody who knows what they're talking about, and how ridiculous this whole affair is.. at least, IMO.
Re:Ah well.. it was fun while it lasted. (Score:1)
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
International Internet? (Score:2)
It's not so great if you're interested in growing markets and creating new channels for access to goods.
European 'net access is a good example of how taxes and questions like this can slow every initiative down to a crawl. Most of my friends in that area don't use the Internet much at all because of the high charges for phone use. And some countries (this may have changed) were taxing the Internet connection fees as "other than local" calls, making them subject to different tax structures and ultimately higher rates. While it's obviously tihsllub to say that we should all be tax free, there needs to be a smarter concession than what's being offered by Sen. Hollings.
A previous commenter noted that the Canadian purchasor should not (and, ultimately, will not) be charged a sales tax on their purchase of goods from an originating US seller. If the tax structure is not smart enough, then the next big Internet thing will be the offshore intermediary. It's pretty easy to write an app that automates this whole process. Drop it on Jamaica and avoid all taxes. Better yet, get a name like WalMart behind it and see how "brand equity" overcomes what would normally be politically problematic. It's pretty easy to see how this process could (and, I argue, WILL) develop. So now its up to our resident regulatory brain surgeons to redefine taxes. A national sales tax? That's NEVER worked. But its an easy model for some country bumpkin from South Carolina to say "hey, um, let's do this!!" At a local level, sales taxes are great. From a state level, they're difficult to manage but still effective. At a national level (and even international)?? Fuggedaboudit.
So, what's a country to do? Catalog and Internet sales are booming (well, compared to the GDP of a small African country, but it makes good headlines!). You could tax the sellers, but that makes producers move off-shore. You could tax the buyers, but that only works until an international billing address is found. I think, instead, we need a new model (sorry, I haven't thought it through yet...no real headlines here, no matter what my Econ degree says).
Oh, wait. This is the big flame opportunity: to tell me to my face that you're going to tax every Internet purchase and use this to fund teaching is the strongest sign of disrepect I can think of. They're full of shit and they know it, and this pisses me off terribly. Any initiative at your national, state or local level that's done with the intent of "providing funds for teachers" is lying to you (except for bonds...). Vote against it. Instead, look to vote in legislators who will allocate their budgets towards education. That's the only "tried and true" method of increasing funds. BTW, I'm including initiatives like STATE LOTTERIES in this list of worthless stuff. More money has gone to the administrations for the California State Lottery and the California Board of Education than to any of California's schools.
Moderate Democrat, Berkely Alum. Troubled youth.
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:2)
The instant something crosses state lines, Congress has authority.
Re:Ignorant of recent history! (Score:2)
Taxes from Canadians are taken at some US sites. (Score:1)
there would be a sales tax on the net.
--> This would not apply to products going
outside of the USA.
As for products going to Canada, many US companies
are allready charging TPS to Canadian customers.
This is an arrangement between the Canadian
government and companies who want to do business
in Canada. Check Barnes and Noble and JC Penny
if you don't believe me.
Re:Give to the rich. Take from the poor. (Score:1)
Re:State lottery money to go "to the schools" (Score:1)
--
Terminal Stupidity (Score:1)
Well . . . first off, the "surplus" is sheer bullshit. Its based on a 10 year economic forecast. The odds of it being accurate are about the same of the odds of Microsoft suddenly casting aside its nasty business practices (lets just say a snowball has a better chance in hell . . . though it always could happen). Additionally, if any company did their accounting the way the government does, the accountants would be thrown in jail. Do you know that things like Medicare and Social Security don't count against the national debt or count as spending? Well . . . obviously we are spending big $$$ on them, and we are not reporting them in our ledgers. What does that do to the projected surplus? I doubt there will be much of a surplus at all.
But you may be wondering what all this has to do with the Slashdot article. The fact of the matter is, the government is already to big and bulky as it is. With the worst case scenario, they should just freeze taxes (not levy any new ones), and they should spend their money smarter. You would be amazed at how much waste there is in the government. There are tons of agencies whose functions overlap and who can be downsized.
The representatives claim that education is in a crisis may be true, but that still doesn't give them the right to tax net usage (which I doubt is very feasible anyway). Why don't the dipshits stop building 20 million dollar airplanes and dragging us into every squabble on this mudball and spend that money on education instead?
Re:Give to the rich. Take from the poor. (Score:1)
...and anyone who has taken arithmetic should understand and be able to explain why $50 is the same to someone who has $100 as $250,000 is to someone who has $500,000.
Put another way: my 5% is the same as your 5%.
they don't (Score:2)
If it were a tax increase every person on the sub would be bitching about it. Every issue of the Boston Globe would have an article about it.
People have selective memory.
[BTW, 100% of your income going to one tax or another is not communism. Understand what you are talking about before you sling around words intended merely to incite an emotional reaction.]
Re:No, YOU check YOUR constitution (Score:2)
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
A reasonable suggestions on Internet Taxes (Score:1)
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
"Our three major weapons are..."
Re:Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:1)
"Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United
States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states
respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be,
for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof. "
Nothing about payment of educators. Hell, if you include a strict interpertation of the 10th Amendment, the power to use tax money for anything not on the list is reserved for the states.
They do have the power to collect income tax though.
"Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or
enumeration."
Re:Unconstitutional (Score:1)
They may not be able to levy interstate taxes, but they sure as hell can regulate interstate trade, this was one of the priciple reasons for creating a federal government - Interstate trade was in a shambles with all sorts of tariff wars.
-josh
Something to look at (Score:2)
One of the goals of the group is the repeal of the 16th amendment (the amendment which gives the federal government authority to tax income directly). They also plan to disband the IRS. The proposal is backed by Representatives John Linder (R-GA) and Collin Peterson (D-MN)
I have mixed feelings about a national 23% sales tax. Mostly, I'm afraid that we'll enact the sales tax and never get around to repealing income taxes. At this point, though, I'm starting to think just about anything would be an improvement over the status quo.
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:1)
Yeah, and I'm sure that when they take that extra $7,000 and try to buy groceries during the summer they have no problems whatsoever at the supermarket. Not that it matters to you; I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you think teachers hibernate during June, July, and August.
By your logic, if the only work you do all year is $100 for an hour's Perl scripting, why, that's like making $192,000! So where's your Ferrari, dipshit?
Re:Is this double taxation (Score:1)
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:2)
I do know for a fact that she has a masters. I doubt she makes $23k. I have no idea what she makes, nor does she know what I make. She's been teaching for 15 years, so I imagine it's more than that.
The amount of planning time is usually very limited, as she's keeping track of 15-25 children in the ages of 7-10 with learning or physical handicaps. I have no idea how that relates to high school or junior high teachers, but I do know she comes home with plenty of work to do. Plus the frequent meetings with parents. Plus the children who show up who she has to rate and see if they need to be in her class or not. This is for a good sized (maybe 15-20k students from K-12) school system.
Teaching isn't a profession that's glorious, easy, or going to make you the next Bill Gates. Perhaps that's my point.
Ugh! This is such old lame "news" (Score:1)
Why is slashdot so often a place where we can read about things that have not happened?
Today a wretched bill was not passed in the Senate or the House, and wasn't passed or even scheduled for a vote in its originating committee. Furthermore, these things will likely not happen.
How's that for a more accurate headline?
This is almost as ridiculous as the story posted earlier about how there was no news last week from Amiga. Thanks!
Itemize - more for tax lawyers and acctnts (Score:1)
Well, once you get enough deductions to beat the std. exemption (like mortgage interest) you can deduct state and local from fed - not sure how that'll work out w/ a fed internet sales tax, along with all the states trying to collect mail order sales tax. However, it'll make things a little more complicated and once again those who remain ignorant will pay for it and those who study it will be able to save. Also, any internet tax scheme will definitely add to a business' overhead and those just marginally skating by will go under. I can see the spam now.
Chuck
*You* miss the point (Score:1)
Re:But they're trying to reduce income taxes. (Score:1)
The other thing is that this isn't your average sales tax. Odds are, most people buying online aren't your average pauper -- you're affecting a different market. How many people buy their basics (like groceries, etc) online? Not too many, so far. So it'll be hitting those who buy their books or cars online, in constrast to those who go down to their local Albertson's or Fred Meyer's.
This also hits the people who want the latest from fashion catalogs, or those who buy computers (caveat. Big computer companies probably won't be heavily affected, because they tend to have presences in many, many states).
That's in constrast to your average in-person-transaction sales tax, which hits those in everyday transactions and *is* blatantly regressive. Then again, so is the lottery, with the fundamental differences that a) the latter is completely voluntary, and b) it's mathematically a bad transaction...
Re:PUT AN END TO PUBLIC SCHOOLING! (Score:1)
And what do you base this crap on? Norm referenced test scores? There's a glaringly obvious problem of sample sets when comparing public & private schools. In short, higher average test scores of private school students do not imply that your child will learn more or perform better on tests (two different problems, btw) than they would by attenting a public school.
Education and Taxes *LAUGH* (Score:1)
Grassroots Organization!!! NOW!!! (Score:1)
Hail the future forth reich
Re:Give to the rich. Take from the poor. (Score:1)
In other words, the value of money is not a linear function.
16th Amendment was never ratified. (Score:1)
The 16th Amendment was merely proclaimed to be ratified.
Re:Something to look at (Score:1)
Re:Something to look at (Score:1)
Random thoughts (Score:2)
Yeah, right. I'm sure they will have a separate tax pool for education. They don't have a separate tax pool for Social Security.
Money for such a task would go into the general pool, and thus be used anywhere and everywhere. Saying otherwise is counting on bleeding heart gullability. While I am very interested in funding education, doing it with a special Federal tax is not going to happen, no matter what they say.
Besides, states and municipalities do it pretty well, thank you. IMArrogantO, the Fed should keep its fingers out of things that the states are competent at.
Thought 2, about a specific Internet tax
IIRC, the bill taxes Internet and catalog sales. Why you tax something based on the way it is sold is beyond me, unless it is to get the word "Internet" in there. Remember, the word "Internet" means more money--maybe the bill is trying to go IPO? Or maybe Congress is? That would legalize buying Senators, at least...
If they just taxed interstate sales, this would make a lot more sense to me. This would be applied to most Internet commerce, catalog sales, etc. It also gets around the definition of "Internet commerce". Interstate commerce is pretty well defined. And regarding non-US sales, standard tariff law and/or NAFTA already regulates this. I live in a zero-sales-tax state (NH), and this makes sense to me.
Thought 3: regarding constitutionality
Article 1, section 8, US constitution: the Fed has the right to tax us, and to regulate interstate commerce. I don't see congress overstepping constitutional bounds here.
Re:Don't screw yourself... (Score:1)
The problem is that the few people we do elect serve certain special (read: their own) interests first and the constituency that elected them second. Eventually they run into the roadblock of not having anymore money so they have three choices: a) don't spend anymore b) borrow c) tax. Choice (a) is the first to go out the window. Choice (b)
You want us all the go run the country, but then you sit back and say complaining is bad. "Go to Cuba" you say. What kind of ignorant nonsense statement is that? "Oh, so you don't like paying taxes? -- go to a communist nation" "Oh, you don't like your government -- Go to Cuba. They're much better at dealing with dissidents." Yeah, that's bright.
I have no idea what orifice this is all coming out of. "Be vocal, but shut up and don't complain" - "hey it could be worse". You sound like a Microsoft user.
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:1)
-----------------------------------
PUT AN END TO PUBLIC SCHOOLING! (Score:1)
*read* the bill. S1433... (Score:2)
* If you already pay state or local sales tax on the merchandise, that amount (up to 5%) is credited towards the tax. So it's not additional to state/local unless your s/l taxes are below that amount...
* Retailers that do business in your state, and are subject to taxing jurisdiction of the state, qualify as 'local merchants' and are excluded.
* The bill *does* specify a fund for education spending. Nominally, salaries, but states w/ above the average (mean, presumably) in teacher salaries (although it says nothing about adjustment for cost-of-living... !) can use the money for other educational purposes.
* It is an excise tax that only applies to products both bought and sold within this country. It's not attempting to tax international sales.
Reasons to go nuts:
* The funding can be withheld, basically at the Secretary's (read: President's) discretion. Read: blackmail opportunity.
* It includes a vague reference to excluding non-local transactions. Possibly, that'd make for an interesting political poker game as to what sort to exclude -- so more patronage.
How odd. Puerto Rico's explicitly included to benefit from the tax, but they won't pay it...
Wrongo! (Score:1)
Then again, in practice the const. seems to be pretty much null and void where prohibited by law anyway.
Chuck
Watch those assumptions. (Score:1)
Teacher's salaries vary wildly depending on what state and county you're in. My mother in law, who taught in PG County, MD for something on the order of 30 years, was making less than $50K when she retired. Meanwhile, where I grew up in PA, it wasn't entirely unusual to meet public school teachers who's salaries topped out near the six-figure range.
This is a particuarly bad area on which to apply anecdotal evidence. Public schools get the teachers they can afford, using the money from the property taxes the district residents can afford, allocated by whichever boneheads with delusions of grandeur can manage to get elected to the school board. IMHO, the wild variance of teacher salaries, competency, and school quality is an argument for more federal involvement in the school system, not less.
Then again, I'm a commie pinko liberal. What the hell do I know?
Still live in a semi-democracy (Score:1)
If you are not happy about the idea of taxes call your senator and register your opinion! Send an e-mail! Tell them what you think! Sometimes it does work!
This bill at this point is in the Senate Finance commite. Go here [senate.gov] for a list of representatives on that committee. If enough calls are made the bill can be killed at the committee level.
Believe it or not our reps do listen to what we say. So make sure you make your opinion know if your reps doing something you don't like.
Re:Give to the rich. Take from the poor. (Score:1)
I'm not for a internet tax, but atleast it is more fair than income tax.
Re:Ignorant of recent history! (Score:1)
Also, occasionally something like Quattro Pro gets marked down... it does happen, one somebody wants more market/mind share.
Re:State lottery money to go "to the schools" (Score:1)
Practical? (Score:1)
Internet Tax (Score:1)
Re:How can your government do that? (Score:1)
Here is the text of the bill (Score:3)
S.1433 Sales Tax Safety Net and Teacher Funding Act [loc.gov]
Note that this is only a bill, and has not passed committee. There is nothing at this point to distinguish this bill from any of the other hundreds of proposals submitted by "our" representatives every year. No need to panic just yet, unless you are from South Carolina. Here is the contact info for Senator Hollings:
Ernest "Fritz" Hollings [senate.gov]
And here is the webpage for the Finance Committee so you can see whether your senator might be influential in this process. If so, please contact him or her!
Senate Committee on Finance [senate.gov]
Check your constitution, Boys! (Score:4)
We need taxes. Sad but true. Nobody likes them, and few people like the government. But taxes are necessary. Especially sales taxes, which help fund local and state governments.
Local governments depend on sales taxes for 36 percent of their annual budget. They use that money to do practical, everyday things like:
* Pay for teachers salaries
* Put police on the roads
* Or, for those who hate the police, they put firemen on the roads.
* Hey, let's be honest, they build the roads and other necessary infrastructure with that money
* Put on your local Peach Cobbler festival
When people talk about government excesses and waste, they are seldom talking about local governments, they are talking about the Feds. It's okay to hate the federal government. That's almost the national pastime.
I would like to add that the taxation bill discussed here is no a good idea. It is poorly thought out.
The money would be collected by the federal government and used to to fund grants for teacher salaries exclusively. What if you need money for road improvements or more police? You're out of luck.
Also, I think that it is too early to tax the net. While we will need to do it eventually, e-commerce is not a large enough piece of the retail pie to make taxing it necessary yet. I'd vote to let it grow more before we take the drastic step of implementing taxes.
Just my $.02.
HipNerd
Enforcement (Score:2)
If a bill of this kind ever makes it out, the IRS might mandate that every secure sale also be encrypted to their published key and sent to a massive Audit-bot hub. Imagine the incentive to crack that key! But even if no third party gains control of the information, the blow to personal privacy would be immense. Not only will they know what you're buying, but also when, with what credit card, to what address, etc etc.
Another means of enforcement (and I'm sure this sends guilty erotic shivers up and down some spook's spine) is to require that secure transactions be performed using a key-escrowed or otherwise governmentally-crackable protocol. Then they could perform random audits. Of course, this capability would never be abused...
-konstant
Re:Here is the text of the bill (Score:2)
Re:...to fund TEACHERS SALARIES!!!! (Score:2)
Okay, so they only work 9 months a year. But for those 9 months, it's very often 50-60 hour weeks. Teacher conferences, parent meetings, meetings with therapists (in my mom's case anyway) and so on. No to mention time to create the curriculum or grade exams or other tests. That's all done outside of work, since that's the only time you have to do it.
Then you've got the inflexibility of the job itself. No vacation time (aside from when everyone else is on vacation), limited sick time, and few real freedoms during the day (can't skip out early for lunch, for example, limits on phone calls, and so on).
For all that, teachers are supposed to do that, make surekids actually *learn* something, and make only $23k? If I'm expected to work that long, I'd like to make more than that. It's not like schools are going to have an IPO anytime soon.
And in response to your education question, it's really on a state-by-state basis how much training you need to be able to teach. In NY, I believe you need at least a masters in education before you can take the teaching exam.
Re:Something to look at (Score:2)
A luxury tax isn't needed, since if you can afford any luxuries at all, you would already be paying taxes on them. This can work and still treat everyone the same, while benefitting those that need tax breaks the most. Our current system benefits (i.e. pay less taxes) those with the income to hire a tax attorney/accountant to find the holes in the law or claim the deductions they deserve.
20% national sales tax + $3,000 tax credit ($15,000 (roughly the poverty level) *
Everyone has the same taxes and low-income families recieve a higher benefit.
You could even do the credit as a credit card (like the Validines I had in school), after the cashier rings you up, you slide 'em the card and it subtracts the tax + debits your tax account.
The "cost" would be the government tracking what you use the credit for, but, and you have to trust me on this (it's what I do), your spending habits are already VERY well tracked by the real government of this country, the corporations.
Then how does Oregon do it with NO SALES TAX? (Score:2)
Finally, it doesn't hurt that the most heavily populated areas of Oregon enjoys fairly comfortable weather year round, and (IIRC) a fairly low crime rate.
When my family moved to the Midwest, our percentage of spendable income to wages went up by about 10% just in the reduction in taxes, even though where I live now has sales tax on basically everything ('though at a lower rate on food.)
Re:No, YOU check YOUR constitution (Score:2)
Methinks we are in violent agreement. The section I quote (article I, section 8) gives Congress the right to pass an internet tax. I was using it to oppose amendment 10 (loose translation: anything we don't cover in the constitution and amendments is not a power given to the Federal Government). I simply showed what piece of the constitution did give that power to the Fed, so amendment 10 is irrelevant here. As another has noted, Congress may or may not have the right to fund education, but that's another story.
Again, I agree that singling the Internet out for taxation, though legal, seems fairly stupid in my book. Too many loopholes.
Re:State lottery money to go "to the schools" (Score:2)