Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet United States Your Rights Online

House Passes Internet Tax Ban 426

Posted by simoniker from the moving-in-right-direction dept.
computerlady writes "InfoWorld reports that the House of Representatives today voted a permanent ban on 'levying taxes unique to the Internet.' The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act would permanently prohibit taxing jurisdictions in the U.S. from levying such taxes as e-mail taxes, bandwidth taxes, or bit taxes. To become law, the bill would have to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed by President Bush. The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved its version of the bill July 31, and its next stop is the full Senate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Passes Internet Tax Ban More

House Passes Internet Tax Ban

Comments Filter:

  • States Rights (Score:5, Informative)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:31AM (#6993004) Journal
    Don't mean to be a party pooper, but your state is still able to charge you a sales tax on all catalog and web transactions.

    No one will come knock on your door if you don't pay, but it's nice to have that weigh on your mind, you tax-evading thief.

    • Re:States Rights (Score:5, Informative)

      by freeefalln ( 541648 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:35AM (#6993025)
      'levying taxes unique to the Internet.' The

      Unique to the internet. that is whats important here. we all know that sales tax is long overdue on the internet, it will come into effect sooner or later.

      • Re:States Rights (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Mattcelt ( 454751 )
        Since when is a tax "long overdue"??!? Isn't paying 1/2 - 1/3 of your salary enough? One of the reasons Internet sales have been so phenomenal is that there aren't the same burdens - financial (for consumers) and administrative (for businesses) that exist elsewhere.

        Also, there has been a ban on interstate sales tax in many jurisdictions for many, many years. If you order something by mail from Oregon and you live in New Jersey, you don't pay sales tax. So what makes you think an Internet sales tax is j

        • Re:States Rights (Score:3, Informative)

          by princewally ( 699307 )
          Also, there has been a ban on interstate sales tax in many jurisdictions for many, many years. If you order something by mail from Oregon and you live in New Jersey, you don't pay sales tax.

          In most states, you do have to pay sales tax if you order something from another state. The company isn't required to charge the tax. You are supposed to get an additional form from the state and declare your purchases yourself.
      • well, that eliminates the other party threatening the freedom of the internet. what this seems to state is that there should be no tolls or taxes on data transfer over the net, as if it was a physical highway, nor stamps as if it was a document.

        of course the world is just waking up to the other party (which effectively has succeeded in) erecting a toll booth on the net, and that would be microsloth and their IE tax, which is built into their winbloze tax.

      • Re:States Rights (Score:4, Interesting)

        by NickFitz ( 5849 ) <slashdot&nickfitz,co,uk> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:29AM (#6993753) Homepage

        Here in the European Union, it arrived as of July 1st 2003. Purchases made online within the EU are liable to VAT (Value Added Tax, the EU version of Sales Tax), even if the supplier of the goods is based and shipping from outside the EU.

        Some details here [pcworld.com].

  • Choice quote... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ratface ( 21117 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:37AM (#6993028) Homepage Journal
    "This bill would broaden access to the Internet, expand consumer choice, promote certainty and growth in the IT sector of our economy and encourage the deployment of broadband services at lower prices. " ... so how come a bill that ensures that the Internet will stay as untaxed as it already is (for Americans at least), manages to promote all those great changes huh?

    Oh well, can't complain too much, at least it's positive news. I just though it made good spin! :-D

    • Re:Choice quote... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Talthane ( 699885 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:19AM (#6993206)

      Because if you're a company that has something to do with internet services, and there were rumours of a 'net tax, you'd probably stop some of your initiatives and hoard money as a contingency fund.

      When the quote says 'certainty', that means a lot to any risk-conscious company. If you have a risk mitigated or removed, you feel safer in going ahead with an initiative like setting up broadband, etc.

  • Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:38AM (#6993035) Homepage
    Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation? In a country where we roughly pay an average of 1/3 of our salaries to variuos governmental entities, I welcome anything that potentially keeps money in my pocket.

    Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.

    • Re:Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mental_telepathy ( 564156 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:47AM (#6993067)
      I welcome anything that potentially keeps money in my pocket

      You're in luck. I think "Anything to keep money in my pocket" is the Bush campaign slogan for '04.

      The reality of a law like this is that it's a PR move. The only thing that can legitmately reduce the tax burden is a cut in spending. Trust me, you'll end up paying that Bush deficit eventually, no matter how sweet a nice fat refund check is now.

      You: Yay! Not Internet Tax
      Government: Your Walrus pacifier tax is due.

      • the deficit as a percentage of GDP (~4%) is not unreasonable whatsoever. it's nowhere near the high end of where america has been (~13%), particularly in times of war or recession.

        our deficit just is not that big of a deal in the economic sense, its just low-hanging fruit in the political sense because it's a big number when unqualified.

        our unemployment, overtime, privacy laws, and foreign policies however are big deals.

        please keep proper perspective when criticizing, and never trust what even the mass

        • the deficit as a percentage of GDP (~4%) is not unreasonable

          Without wanting to initiate a professional discussion on economics (I don't have to much of a clue here, and sometimes I have the impression that nobody does), I would just like to point out that the upper deficit limit as imposed by the EU council is 2 percent. This might be right, it might be wrong, some countries (such as France and Germany, and probably Italy too) are having a larger deficit - but at least Europe is aiming to not exceed thos

          • the EU tries to maintain -its- deficit at 2 percent, as it exists -in-addition- to the deficit of its member states. as i understand the EU (and IANA-european lawyer), it doesn't have the authority to curb member state taxation/spending. The EU's deficit cap was enacted to ensure the member states that the EU couldn't vastly outspend its means, crumble, and saddle them with vast debt.

            the kyoto protocol (yes i read it) is another misrepresented problem. the reason the US did not sign the treaty was that w
      • You're in luck. I think "Anything to keep money in my pocket" is the Bush campaign slogan for '04.

        Yeah the only problem is, this was voted by the House of Rep. Bush hasn't seen the proposal yet.
      • The only thing that can legitmately reduce the tax burden is a cut in spending. Trust me, you'll end up paying that Bush deficit eventually, no matter how sweet a nice fat refund check is now.

        Not necessarily true. The tax burden can be minimized by a deficit. Here's how:

        1) If there is no deficit, spending temptations explode, and expensive spending proposals will be pushed. If there is a deficit, it is less likely that spending programs will be passed, because there is a legitimate cover in "We can't fee
    • 1/3? I don't know what tax bracket you're in, but after Fed, SS, Medicare, State, Local, property tax, Sales tax, auto registration, and other various fees, most of us in the U.S. pay over 50% of our salaries to the gov.

      Europe is looking more and more attractive. You actually GET something in return for your taxes there.

      • Re:Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:4, Informative)

        by King Babar ( 19862 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:17AM (#6993196) Homepage
        1/3? I don't know what tax bracket you're in, but after Fed, SS, Medicare, State, Local, property tax, Sales tax, auto registration, and other various fees, most of us in the U.S. pay over 50% of our salaries to the gov.

        In a word, no we don't. Not if by "most of us" you mean "most US taxpayers". For a decently readable account of this and other economic "facts", there's a piece in the NY Times [nytimes.com] (free registration blah blah).

      • Re:Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:4, Funny)

        by perly-king-69 ( 580000 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:24AM (#6993229)
        Here in Europe whilst we do have healthcare free at the point of delivery, you Americans do have some wonderful ships, aircraft, tanks, missiles etc.

        • Don't forget the aircraft carrier... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:06AM (#6993540)
          The American military has lots of excesses from the cold war. We have too large of a surface and submarine fleet. Without the former Soviet fleet, there is no need for our forces to be SO biased towards responding to a nuclear first strike (where first strike is designed to incapacitate our land-based missiles from responding), etc.

          We should probably shift more of the money from excessive stealth fighters (there are no dogfights anymore, we just need a first wave to take out anti-aircraft response) towards more troops and better equipment for them.

          However, if you are going to talk about the American military, it's our aircraft carriers that let us rule the world. That is how we can project power across the globe. It let's us send air power anywhere.

          I look at things in Europe and the US the way children and adults see life. Children see the next purchase as a video game, and that their parents should pay for it. Adult understand that they need to work hard, earn a living, and pay for things like food and shelter.

          You expect others to pay for your desires, we understand that we need to pay our own way.

          You would think that 50 years of the US subsidizing Europes existance, plus the thousand year head start on civilization would put your standard of living tremendously beyond our own. However, the opposite is the case. Somehow the side affect of expecting others to pay for your lifestyle has resulting in productivity hits that are more significant than the savings from having us subsidize your defense.

          Money has to be made, by producing goods and services desired. Anything granted by the government is a hand-out from money taken at gun point from those that produce wealth. Money is an indicator of productivity, nothing more.

          Alex

          • You would think that 50 years of the US subsidizing Europes existance, plus the thousand year head start on civilization would put your standard of living tremendously beyond our own.

            Ummm...the USA didn't spring out of fresh air. It's an offshoot of European colonists and numerous waves of immigrants (Irish, Jewish, Italian, Mexican &c) The 'headstart' comment is laughable.

            Anything granted by the government is a hand-out from money taken at gun point from those that produce wealth.

            There is a pl

      • Europe is looking more and more attractive. You actually GET something in return for your taxes there.

        I disagree. Just look at all of the additional value we get here in the US for our tax dollar...
        • DMCA
        • UTICA
        • CALEA
        • COPA
        • CDA
        • Our well-oiled smoothly running Patent office -- where applications are processed and granted quickly -- probably most smoothly running in the world.
        • Our enlightened Copyright extensions
        • War on Drugs
        • War on Terror
        • War on Freedom
        • The largest NoooKuLar Arsenul in the world

    • In a country where we roughly pay an average of 1/3 of our salaries to variuos governmental entities.

      It is my impression that you are actually quite lucky. In the country I currently live in (Italy) a whopping 43% gets deducted from my salary even before I get it. Of the other 57% percent, I probably spend half for a living, where 20% VAT is applied - therefore I pay almost 50% of taxes.

      <rant>And what makes me really sick is to see how the money does not get used, but is merely vanishing in all ki

    • Yeah, that's the thing. The dems always want to tax everything so they can spend money on all kinds of programs. And while I like the programs, I don't like getting everything taxed. The reps, however, want to get rid of all the taxes, but still have enough to only pay for the stuff they care about, like the military.

      I learned in economics class that if x then taxes should go up and if y taxes should go down. I want a government that took economics class. They should change the taxes to match the curre

      • Re:Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by goldspider ( 445116 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:51AM (#6993414) Homepage
        "The reps, however, want to get rid of all the taxes, but still have enough to only pay for the stuff they care about, like the military."

        You say that like that's a bad thing. Whatever happened to the concept of "limited government"?

        "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

        While this famous quote isn't a comprehensive examination of our government's structure, it is a decent summation of what should be the boundaries of our government's role in our lives.

        Nowhere in that quote is mentioned a guarantee of prosperity, nor does it speak of a responsibility of the government (through taxpayers) to provide for those who can't or won't provide for themselves.

        Quite simply, the government was never intended to function as a means to redistribute the wealth of its citizens; to divert money from one group of individuals to another.

        "I learned in economics class that if x then taxes should go up and if y taxes should go down. I want a government that took economics class."

        I'm 100% in agreement with you there. That's one of my beefs with the current administration.

    • Yeah, socialists really hate a free flow of ideas.

      ::rolls eyes::
    • Nice troll. But the real point of this bill was, if you think more than 5 seconds about it, to indeed tax the Internet. The bill is supposed to ban taxes unique to the Internet. For example, a "web site tax" would not be allowed. But each and every tax that exists in the brick-and-mortar world, which could possibly be applied to some parallel on the Internet...you'd better believe the taxes are coming down the pipe. This is just a smokescreen.
    • Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.

      Sorry, but I am most certainly a Bush-basher, and I have been called a socialist before (I don't consider myself to be one, but I do share many of their ideals).

      I have nothing against a law forcing consistancy in the application of taxation across diferent sales channels. In fact I think it is a great idea.

      A real socialist should be against sales taxes all t
    • Maybe in isolation this action is justified, but it's stupid to keep on cutting taxes while the US is running a whopping deficit and the states and cities are struggling to balance their budgets.

      There are a few idiots who keep on parroting "cutting taxes increases tax revenues". If that is true, then cutting taxes to zero will create huge revenues. In fact, the government should levy no taxes and then give money away! Hopefully, it is obvious that "cutting taxes increases tax revenues" only works if

    • Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal...

      Talk about Flaimbait! As well as just being plain wrong.

      As an Official Bush Hater (tm), I find this to be welcome news. Any socialists care to comment?

    • Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation?

      Well, Congress no. America, yes.

      Yeah, some time around 1773 in Boston harbor... the last time I checked. They also did a decent job all the way up to 1787 as well.

      Oh, and the 1860's were bad for individual state taxation. But we fixed that too.

    • Re:Finally, a step in the right direction! (Score:4, Informative)

      by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:21AM (#6994858) Homepage Journal
      Can you remember the last time that Congress actually prohibited a form of taxation?

      Poll tax. The Twenty Fourth Amendment was passed by Congress on August 27, 1962, and it was ratified by the several States in early 1964.

      GF.

    • Of course, socialists and Bush-bashers are going to hate this on principal, but I think most of us can see the positive conotations such a law has.

      Hey! I'm a Bush-basher, and I think this is a great law. It's what we've all been saying on slashdot for years: don't write new laws for the internet, reuse existing ones.

  • How could they legally tax those products anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by StormyWeather ( 543593 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:39AM (#6993036) Homepage
    I don't see how the states could tax internet transactions anyways. Isn't that part of the fundamental way our government is set up, so that states cannot levy taxes upon cargo from other states? If they could states like Oklahoma could really rake it in for things going through their state from Texas to Kansas. Man I wish I hadn't slept through government class on that subject now.

  • Finally... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Clinoti ( 696723 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:40AM (#6993040)
    I will stop getting those stupid emails about the internet tax for emails, and bandwidth taxes, etc...Which is the good side.

    BUT on the other side of the equation a part of me would not mind paying an internet tax on emails, if it would help in the battle against spam and junk mailings...although one may assume that the senders have deep pockets.

    So in this end this really resolves nothing for me. Execept for a link I can point to when I get the next barage of "Internet Email Tax!!!" emails. :)


    • If there was even a 1/10th cent tax on each email SPAM would drop dramatically.

      Think about it, you've seen the advertisement "Read 200 million people instantly" at 1/10th cent that means EACH single SPAM will cost you $200,000

      Now the market for penis enlargement could be big... but I'm betting it isn't that big (pun intended).

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:44AM (#6993056)
    I know that nobody likes taxes, but given that some taxes have to be collected, why a special ban on "internet taxes"? I pay special taxes when I take a flight, for instance, why does the airline industry have to suffer special taxes but the internet industry doesn't?

    Now, something like a tax per email would of course just be dumb, but would a fixed household-based tax on broadband be dumb? Especially bearing in mind that the gov. needs to police the internet to a certain extent (to those that say they don't, get back to me when your Mom gets their banking details stolen or your friend gets defrauded by a mock ebay site).

    • I know that nobody likes taxes, but given that some taxes have to be collected, why a special ban on "internet taxes"? I pay special taxes when I take a flight, for instance, why does the airline industry have to suffer special taxes but the internet industry doesn't?

      Why do you think? Do you think this has to do with preserving consumer interests and protecting your rights?

      Pffft. Don't be ridiculous. It's called 'special interests'. Anyone notice that the nation's largest media conglomerate is also th

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:58AM (#6993105) Journal
      You already pay a tax on broadband silly. Well at you least in europe. It is called a sales tax. or BTW or VAT or whatever other name they have given to the tax applied to everything that is sold.

      What a internet tax would be is a tax not on your vacuum cleaner but on how many times you hover with it as well.

      An email tax would be a double tax. First you pay for the bandwidth, then for the use of that bandwidth? Like charging me BTW for a loaf of bread, butter, and toppings. Then charging me a tax when I make a sandwich out of it and eat it myself.

      • Yes, I was thinking something similar in America the good old Telephone Excise Tax also known as the Spanish-American war tax. A war so short it's only a footnote in history, but we are still taxed for it none-the less. Universal Service Fee I believe is the one that we get double taxed on, and don't ask me the diffrence between the Tele Exise tax and the Universal Service fee. If you got a phone, you pay it. If you got long distance service diffrent from your local phone service, you pay it again, if y
    • "...but would a fixed household-based tax on broadband be dumb?"

      Just what we always needed, another regressive tax.

      If you want to tax anything on the Internet, how about taxing the number of frames in a moving .gif and all the other stuff advertisers like to do?

    • Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Twylite ( 234238 )

      I'm glad someone else is questioning this Bill ... the devil's advocate in me has to find the bad points ;)

      In general we pay taxes where the state has an interest in providing or overseeing infrastructure. The principle of special taxes is to impose a tax on the use of infrastructure that isn't essential or not everyone uses.

      In most countries income tax pays for government in general, the military, social security, education, and at least partially funds critical instructure like electricity, water and

  • Whee (Score:2, Informative)

    by shoptroll ( 544006 )
    Cool... I'm not too concerned about sales tax anyways, i mean you order stuff from a catalog or one of those shopping networks you gotta pay sales tax... Same principle i think

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:46AM (#6993065)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • And it would only cost $80,000,000 a year to regulate. We'll need to invent a new tax to pay for enforcing the email tax.

    • Re:missed opportunity on SPAM fight (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:57AM (#6993099)
      SPAM houses would pay through the nose

      Yes, because as we know most of the spam we get comes from the USA. Really tho, that's just a stupid idea. Even for fighting USA-based spammers.

      Go stand in the corner!
    • SPAM houses within the country would pay through the nose...

      And while those still exist, they are not the majority.

      And how are the taxes measured? Is each originating site responsible for tracking it's outgoing mail or does everyone track everyone and some government office try to sort this mess out?

      Would the income from such a tax even remotely cover the expenses of administrating it?

      Or is there a much more effective solution in the $1-$5 per user per month range?
      • SPAM houses within the country would pay through the nose... And while those still exist, they are not the majority.

        Ahh, but someone is selling something via. SPAM. And the seller would get taxed on their penis enlargement pills. You don't think that they import these?

        But I'd rather see a ban on spam rather than a tax. The ban could have huge penalties, which the seller would pay, even if you can't catch the spammer. Putting the sellers out of business would reduce spammers to only selling their

    • As much as I'd hate to see internet tax, it might be a mechanism to fight SPAM. Introducing a tax of 1 penny for each e-mail sent would set the average user back about $1 - $5 a month.

      SPAM houses would pay through the nose... I thin this would be a small investment for all of us to make junk mail less profitable.

      As much as I agree with you, I have already had long and detailed debates about these subjects. With your proposal, there are a few "problems".

      1. How do you regulate it? I receive 100 messag

    • ...is like fighting an infestation of fleas by dousing your house with gasoline and setting it afire. Sure, it works, but the solution is worse than the problem.

      You tax something, you get less of it. Taxing the internet would mean slowing down growth and innovation (real innovation, not the Microsoft kind). Moreover, once passed, that tax will NEVER be repealed. Besides, how are you going to collect that tax from all those people who are already breaking laws by forging headers, and on all those offshore s
    • As much as I'd hate to see internet tax, it might be a mechanism to fight SPAM.

      If the government was able to see all the email someone sends (that in itself is a big bad!), then why would you bother taxing spam when you could just ban it outright?

  • If only they could find a way of taxing annoying e-mails - I think we would all be happy. A filter searches for words "virus warning" or "enlarge" or "microsoft" would get most of them. Then I could sit back and enjoy a clutter-free inbox.
    • Except for those of us who subscribe to Bugtraq or NTBugtraq. The number of e-mails sent to us containing the word 'Microsoft' would tax us into the ground causing most of the *bugtraq community to file Chapter 11 within minutes of such a keyword tax law.
  • like take a legislative razor and cut through the lines of providers who establish local monopolies and then force people to pay exuberant prices on internet connections?

    Seriously. Companies built the network just like Ma bell did and when you creat a vital resource you must give that resource to the people or face hell, like Ma bell did. It isn't as bad as it was for broadband but if the deregulation continues as it is, it'll get that bad.

    If they REALLY want to increase the growth of broadband, how
    • If they REALLY want to increase the growth of broadband, how about taking some money from, say, "foreign aid" or military spending, say around 10-20 billion

      What are you talking about. Let's add up some of the debt these companies fed on in the 90's.

      AT&T owes about $70B (less now after divesting cable)

      WorldCom owes at least $40B

      Sprint owes at least $30B
      Qwest owes at least $40B
      AOL has close to $40B in long term debt.

      Then there are the countless other little guys. the Global Crossings, Frontier Ne

  • Damn Republicans.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by snatchitup ( 466222 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:54AM (#6993088) Homepage Journal
    Oh wait.... Is that right? We like this don't we?

    • We like this don't we?

      Actually, I'd prefer to keep the federal government out of the affairs of the states. If the states want to tax internet access, they should be able to do so.

      • How about transmission lines? Say, if a line passes through a state, would you allow them to tax the bits going through the line?

        Also, many transmission lines follow along railroad lines and therefore come under federal jurisdiction under the Trans.Railroad act.

  • Short Sited decison? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jez_f ( 605776 ) <jeremy@jeremyfrench.co.uk> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @06:56AM (#6993096) Homepage
    OK this may be a little controversial but I think that in the future a 'bandwidth tax' or some such thing may not be a bad idea. We supposedly moving into an age of the information economy. Some people through the Internet have more access to information than others, this information makes their life better. They can look for better jobs, be better informed on what is going on in the world and make more productive decisions accordingly. This situation will get worse as more and more services move exclusively online. The info poor will have fewer opportunities.

    If you see tax as a way of re distributing wealth to help the less well off then you could conceivably charge a bandwidth tax and put the money into public net access. I know not everyone sees tax this way but it dosn't seem like that bad an idea to me
    It could also be used to help fund Internet monitoring, which I know no one likes but the government is going to do it anyway so why shouldn't people who use more bandwidth pay a greater share of the cost?

    • Why are you trying to create a need for an internet tax? I have a better idea: let me keep my money and do what I want with it, rather than letting the government spend it in ways I'll have no control over.

    • YIKES!

      I have to say that your post, along with numerous others, typifies the exact attitude that is allowing politicians to continually eat away at American paychecks. We are continually saying (we being Americans in general) to the government how much we hate taxes, but please, oh PLEASE, fix our problems. Give us more free stuff.

      Except that its not free. It IS redistribution of wealth, or better yet, legalized theft. Yep that's right, you have here a believer in the idea of capitalism and personal li
    • First of all, we ALREADY have public Internet access in most libraries. Second, Internet access is cheap; it can be had for $10/month. Computers are cheap; a decent one can be had for $200, and there's always the option of picking up a used one. Taxing bandwidth would hurt the poor, unless you only tax bandwidth that rich people use.

      Considering that over 50% of the U.S. population already has Internet access(since two years ago!), I think your solution is in need of a problem.

  • Would Taxing Be Feasable? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kaellinn18 ( 707759 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:00AM (#6993114) Homepage Journal

    Would putting a tax on internet transactions even be feasable? Granted, it would be relatively easy to track sales from huge companies like Amazon, but what about the individual selling stuff off of their own website eBay style? You would literally have to track down every single website that's selling something and make sure they're obeying the tax laws. Also, what about sites that are international? Would these laws be enforcable for us buying things from other countries or people in other countries buying things from us? The internet is a global entity, not just in the USA. I can see taxing e-mails, but I'm not sure how you would effectively tax online sales. Please feel free to explain to me how it could work, because I am interested.

  • it would be retroactive for FY2003? Ohio has an Internet Goods sales tax that you have to account for on your state taxes every 4/15. Of course one can massage the numbers ("gee... those three CPUs I bought online came by Fedex so...") but I'd be nice to not have to worry about it.

    Or would this affect state taxation at all?
  • You tell the public to give up it's fight against such taxation, CAUSE ITS GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAY!!!

    It also potentially brings it up as possibly a major news media topic....

  • Prohibits taxing access, not e-commerce (Score:4, Informative)

    by wayward_son ( 146338 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:12AM (#6993171)
    This bill prohibits the taxing of the access to the internet, not sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet.

    A good law. I think the politicians should keep their grubby hands off internet access.

  • This is a great day for democracy and breasts. (Score:3, Funny)

    by joeszilagyi ( 635484 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @07:21AM (#6993216)
    Thank goodness I will no longer have to worry about unfair or adverse taxation on my free pornography.

  • but what about VAT (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LordKronos ( 470910 )
    This is good news. Now if only we can get them to do something about the ridiculous VAT which Europe has imposed on the rest of the world. As a US software developer selling from my own web site, I am required* to collect VAT on all sales to EU customers. Not only am I required* to collect it, I have to send it to them at my expense. On top of all that, the new internet VAT law is quite confusing, and even the people responsible for making and enforcing it can't seem to agree on exactly what it covers (ex:
  • "Permanant" means nothing in this context. No government can bind its sucessors, especially with a law like this. The next time the Democrats get in, if they're looking for some extra revenue, it will be easy for them to just repeal this law and start charging Broadband Tax. Or even Bush himself, when it finally dawns on him just how much money he's losing.

  • Leaves door open for Federal Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Helmholtz ( 2715 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:03AM (#6993516) Homepage
    "H.R. 49 would permanently extend a moratorium on certain state and local taxation of online services and electronic commerce, and would eliminate an exception to the prohibition for certain states..."

    It looks to me that this is just a little bit of staging for a future Federal tax on internet usage, perhaps interlocked with a Federal internet licensing/watchdog effort pushed through under the guise of "Homeland Security".

    The rhetoric would go something like "...CyberSpace has become such an integral part of this nation's economy that it is the job of the Federal Government to protect it from terroristic disruption. In order to fund this hightened level of US Internet security, a Federal Tax will be leveyed against ..." This would also effectively allow the tax payer to pay for the high speed internet of not only the Federal government, but also State governments, who would of course be exempt from the Federal tax.

    Of course maybe I'm just paranoid ... I sure hope so.

  • New Taxes? (Score:2, Funny)

    by thogard ( 43403 )
    I didn't read the article because I just got an urgent importaint message.

    I just got this email saying the bell company was about to put a $50 per month tax on all modems. We must write congress at once to stop this. Most of us can afford to call BBSes if this goes through so write a letter now!

  • Is VoIP Unique to the Internet? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mikkeles ( 698461 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:23AM (#6993693)
    I wonder how this will affect Vonage 's fight with Minnesota [slashdot.org] over the proposal to tax VoIP?
  • Where I'm from, we don't have a written constitution, just the general expectation that anything you would not dare do to the Queen, you would not do to an ordinary citizen either.

    But if we did have a written constitution, I'd be pushing for a clause along the lines that all means to the same end were equally valid, and any future invention that accomplishes the same ends as an existing invention should not be given any special treatment unless there were compelling reasons beyond mere novelty.
  • I'm really happy to see this working it's way up the ladder. Hopefully it'll make it through! While I dont mind paying sales taxes on items purchased over the network in my own state I however am against taxes on email (Where's the public burden?), bandwidth/bit taxes (I dont get taxed per call) both of which would of been extremely damaging to small businesses and would of killed off a lot of small websites in the US.

  • No taxes - yet. (Score:3, Funny)

    by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:59AM (#6994608)
    This is known as the "We're gonna tax the crap out of you but not yet" bill.

    The "exemption" will run out and it'll be a question of proactively passing a ban on taxes again. That won't happen forever.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Izago909 ( 637084 ) <tauisgod@g m a i l . com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:05AM (#6994649)
    The president found a source of money large enough to occupy... errrr... liberate Iraq for another 6 months. Also... The president read in a newspaper that it is possible to tax the internet. A veto on HR 49 is expected.

  • Email Tax (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MacGod ( 320762 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @12:02PM (#6995887)

    DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to be flamebait here, this is my honest opinion:

    I'm torn about the idea of an email tax. While in general I don't like the idea too much, it does occur to me that this might be the only way of dramatically reducing spam.

    Look at it this way: Even a wicked-busy web maven likely sends less than 1000 emails a day outside of their own company LAN (with a few exceptions I realise. Individuals likely send less than 100 per day in general.

    So, say you put a tax, to be administered by your ISP on each email, of say 0.1 cents per email. Big Business guy gets charged $1/day, home user $0.10 per day. By no means big money. Johny McSuperSpammer, however, who sends out 10 million emails every day, gets a handly little bill for $1000. Kind of changes the economics of his penis enlarger ads.

    Like I say, I'm not a huge fan of paying more, but it does seem like making emails cost per message sent might be the best/easiet/only way to dramatically reduce spam.

    Furthermore (ideally), to make up for the cost, you ISP could take $5 per month off your bill, to make up for the extra you're spending to send email. They still make money, because of the tax, the financial hit for you is minimal, but the spammers get hosed.

    • Re:Email Tax (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeathPenguin ( 449875 ) *
      An interesting proposition, but much of the spam we recieved either originates or is relayed through routers in other nations, not respect US law. So who foots the bill for spam that comes from countries that lie outside US Jurisdiction?

      What happens when spam kingpins [slashdot.org] in America outsource to people in other countries that do not respect US law to take the blame for spamming?

  • What this really means... (Score:3, Informative)

    by deblau ( 68023 ) <slashdot.25.flickboy@spamgourmet.com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @12:54PM (#6996354) Journal
    (if the bill passes the Senate and gets signed into law) is that no state may tax you for Internet access. This bill basically says that such a tax would be financially discriminatory, since apparently a tax on access would deprive some Americans of the ability to use a common communications medium. I guess the 'Net has finally hit the mainstream.

    What this bill isn't, is a moratorium on taxation of Internet services (such as long distance/VoIP, catalog/retail shopping, web hosting, etc). The House have only said that no state may tax access to these services.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close