Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Write Your Congressman -- They want to Tax Your Email!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Write Your Congressman -- They want to Tax Your Email!!!













    Finished laughing yet?















    Ready to read the obvious spam, then tell the ol' Mad Monk that he's fallen for the oldest urban myth on the web?












    Good.













    Now read this:










    October 28, 2003
    Internet Tax Debate Is Going Down to the Wire
    By Roy Mark

    The U.S. Senate has yet to schedule a vote on the Internet Tax Moratorium, which expires Saturday, although staff members predict there will be some action on the legislation by the end of the week. The U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 17 passed a bill to make the current moratorium permanent.

    Similar legislation was passed by a Senate committee earlier this year. Since the House vote, however, opponents to a permanent ban say the House and Senate bills make substantive changes to the current law that could eventually cost states as much as $9 billion annually in taxes.

    The opposition has prompted several senators to put a "hold" on the legislation.

    The changes to current temporary moratorium include eliminating a grandfather clause that preserves state and local taxes on Internet access "imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998," and an expanded definition of "Internet access" to prevent states from taxing telecommunications services "used to provide Internet access."

    "Senator (Ron) Wyden is certainly pressing for it to come up on the floor this week," Chris Fitzgerald, a spokesman for Wyden (D.-OR), a sponsor of the bill, told internetnews.com. "But, the floor schedule is a matter for leadership to decide."

    Amy Call, press secretary for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R.-TN), said Monday it is "unclear at this point" when, and if, the bill will come up for a vote before Saturday's expiration date. However, Call said, other parliamentary maneuvers, such as passing a continuing resolution to extend the temporary moratorium or attaching Wyden's bill to budget legislation, were possible.

    The original moratorium was established by the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA) enacted for three years in 1998 and renewed by Congress for another two years in 2001.

    The House and Senate bills require nine states that were grandfathered in the original 1998 legislation to repeal existing Internet access taxes. The legislation also introduces new definitions of Internet access meant, according to the bill sponsors, to include broadband access as well as the dialup access covered in the temporary moratorium.

    A number of states, led by the National Governors Association (NGA) are concerned the new definitions would exempt not only certain telecommunications services, but would also expand the pre-emption beyond sales taxes to include some income, property and other business taxes.

    Last week, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA), John Ensign (R-NV), John Sununu (R-NH), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and George Allen (R-VA) offered what they called a compromise to fix the broadened definition terms, but the governors claim it isn't enough.

    In an NGA letter to Senate leadership, Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry and South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, chair and vice chair of the group's economic development and commerce committee, said, "With little time to negotiate an appropriate definition of Internet access, we encourage you to support a simple, temporary extension of current law to allow Congress, industry, and state and local governments time to fashion a permanent moratorium that is thoughtful and fair."

    Fitzgerald said there were "ongoing negotiations" about "certain aspects of the legislation." He added that the states have been "unable to show how they would be adversely affected."

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was unable to estimate the amount state and local revenue losses that would result from this change because telecommunications companies are not required to maintain records categorizing their sales by type of customer, making it impossible to distinguish sales of high-speed telephone lines to Internet access providers from sales of similar services to other business customers.

    However, the CBO did state, "Depending on how the language altering the definition of what telecommunications services are taxable is interpreted, that language also could result in substantial revenue losses for states and local governments."

    In addition to NGA's letter, individual governors have been writing to senators urging them to fix the legislation by clarifying that the moratorium applies only to access.

    In a letter to Grassley, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft wrote, "I urge you to continue working with your Senate colleagues to narrow the preemption language to its original intent so as to affect Internet access only."

    State and local government groups including NGA also wrote to House and Senate leaders Sept. 17 to voice their concerns about the legislation.

    The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington policy group, issued a report last week claiming no state or local government would be permitted to tax DSL service in the future under the language changes in the proposed bills.

    As a result of this prohibition, the report states, consumers who choose to lease a second regular voice telephone line to access the Internet would be subject to all applicable state and local taxes, while those who purchase more expensive DSL service, which permits simultaneous use of the Internet and a voice telephone, would not be subject to taxes.


    Now, according to a senator who was speaking on this issue on the radio today, nobody at the federal actually wants to start taxing email et al, but certain people do want to allow states to start charging sales tax on internet sale -- and they're holding the moratorium hostage.

    If it folds, and it will on November 1st without the renewal, it will be open season for every state and municipality to tax any and every packet running through their wires -- not practical, but this isn't about practical, it's about extorting a sales tax.
    No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

  • #2
    Of course, internet is becoming indespensable so they will find a way to tax it soemhow so we cant avoid it....
    Just like ATMs and their banking fees. They tellers used to tell us:"Use the ATM, it's free!" And now it's 1.25$ per transaction.....god damn...we are really getting ripped off.

    Spec.
    -Never argue with an idiot; He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.

    Comment


    • #3
      Why shouldn't transactions over the internet be taxed?
      Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

      Comment


      • #4
        Initially I thought that an e-mail tax might discourage spammers, but they'd just move their operations to tax havens and offshore places, so it wouldn't really have much effect.

        Comment


        • #5
          As much as I think che is a dirty commie that wants to tax everything (not really, che ), I have to agree. Just because you are buying something over the internet why should you not have to pay your state sales tax? I realize it's a nice loophole and all, but in reality it is screwing the states (and you think state budget deficits are bad now?).
          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

          Comment


          • #6
            Che, Imran -- I agree about the sales tax, but this isn't about that, it's about people trying to force the issue by ending the moratorium (which dosen't block any proposed sales tax).
            No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.

            Comment


            • #7
              i don't like the idea of taxing the internet, mainly because of privacy issues.

              if they start taxing on an individual basis, you can kiss inet anonymity goodbye for good.
              B♭3

              Comment


              • #8
                Taxing email is folly. Taxing internet access isn't. It could simply be taxed the same way your phone is taxed.
                Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                Comment


                • #9
                  that's not quite what i mean.

                  if they can start taxing every packet of data your computer sends out, they'll have to know who sent that data and who received it.

                  knowing that, it's not too far of a leap to figure out what was being transferred.

                  that's where the privacy concerns are.

                  if they merely tacked it on top of the isp bill, and was flat, i suppose i wouldn't mind much.
                  B♭3

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I din't think they're stupid enough to try and tax every packet of data. If it could be done, it would kill the internet, since even a penny tax per packet would quickly bankrupt anyone using the internet. Then multiply that by the number of times a packet has to move through a server, and you might as well just say anyone who has an internet connection should hand over all money to the Feds. Given the amount of traffic and the amount of connections, however, I would suggest its a sysiphean task.
                    Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      why should states be allowed to charge sales tax on internet purchases?

                      I mean if I'm buying from a company fully based in another state, using the internet is like driving to that state, buying something from a store there, and then having it delivered to me. For example, my brother lives in Tennessee and the Virginia state line is about 20 minutes away. Virginia has a 4.5% sales tax, and Tennessee has a 9.5% (iirc). If my brother drives 20 minutes to Lowes (on the virginia side) and buys a washer and dryer, Lowes will deliver it to his house, and he won't pay Tennessee any sales tax. This to me is the same thing. If you are paying sales tax on internet purchases, it should be to the state where the company is located. That makes as much sense as what they are trying to do now.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is just the start.. soon you see taxes everywhere, bigger and stronger. Soon, you will see extended welfare system, and the fall of great country will start. Bring the fight to the one that started it!
                        In da butt.
                        "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                        THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                        "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If you are paying sales tax on internet purchases, it should be to the state where the company is located.


                          Who says this is not what some are advocating?

                          Right now, internet purchases don't pay ANY sales tax (well except if you are in certain states).
                          “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                          - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I agree with korn. If we can't have free trade between the states, then why be UNITED at all. Lets just cancel NAFTA and let each state be it's on ruling entity and let Washington be a meaningless puppet like the UN...
                            Monkey!!!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              There is free trade between the states, that doesn't mean that each state can't tax things sold there .
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X