Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

US House Votes To Renew Internet Tax Ban

Posted by kdawson on Tue Oct 16, 2007 04:21 PM
from the partisan-as-ever dept.
Government The Almighty Buck The Internet United States Politics
Talen317 writes with news that the US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to renew the ban on taxing Internet access — but only for 4 years, not permanently. A majority of House members (238) co-signed the bill to make the moratorium permanent. Republicans blamed the House leadership for refusing to bring this latter bill to a vote, charging that the Democrats wanted to leave the door open for future taxation. Not so, countered Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), one of the sponsors of the 4-year bill. The Senate must act on the moratorium before Nov. 1 if taxation is to be avoided, and Watt claimed that a permanent ban would be dead on arrival in the Senate.
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: House Votes to renew Internet Tax Ban by Talen317 (1131949)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

US House Votes To Renew Internet Tax Ban 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • that is. 2012. i wonder if house members know shit that we dont.

  • Idiots. Banning of the making of a law... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Tuesday October 16 2007, @04:28PM (#21002203)
    ...is like worrying about "vulnerabilities" exploitable only by root. It's cosmetics. They can revoke this law and bring a new one that taxes the net if they wish so. Banning themselves from doing something at a later time is totally futile when they can just change their mind.
    • except it isn't group think. So now you have to have enough member who want to repeal this temp. law, and then add taxing.
      It also puts it aside for four years, so they don't have a vote on it every year.

      Standard Politics

    • Re:Idiots. Banning of the making of a law... (Score:5, Informative)

      by robkill (259732) on Tuesday October 16 2007, @04:33PM (#21002265)
      RTFA -

      It is a federal law banning state and local governments from taxing the net. That is useful to prevent artificial "tariff boundaries" that have no real relevance. Of course the definition of physical presence in a state for sales tax still applies, but that becomes an issue only for large web vendors with distribution centers (or other such offices) in multiple states.
    • Why ban it permanently, when they can ensure that they'll be "lobbied" again 4 years from now.
  • ... I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access. It is a service and is very similar to many other goods or services on which a tax is charged. I just don't see how this would be news whether or not it passed. If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service. Instead, I continue to save about 12 bucks annually. Sure, I wouldn't be in LOVE with the idea, but I wouldn't be surprised or outrageously put-off by the idea.

    I think for this to be newsworthy, an internet tax would need to be proposed based off of the amount of network traffic produced (Like I could see some uninformed politicians proposing in order to keep the "tubes" cleaner). In doing so, anyone dealing with high volume transfer (e.g. Walmart Photo Center, Video and flash developers, youtube) would be forced to grind to a halt, however this is not the case.
    • they're taxes. Where does the money go, that's the question.

      Help with a national health care plan? sure. Help with alternative fuel and carbon extraction RnD? sure. 2 bucks to give Wal-mart a tax break? not so much.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by phantomlord (38815)
        If you consider that taxation is an encroachment on your (monetary) freedom, then taxation is a limit on freedom. As such, there should need to be a justification in exchange for the limitation of your freedom. Paying the police and fire department? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people can agree reasonable taxation to provide for that is fair. Sin taxes to try to control someone else's behavior? Not so good, IMO. Everything in between is subjective and, as such, should be left to states and local communities to p

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ppanon (16583)
          Paying the police and fire department? Yeah, I'm sure a lot of people can agree reasonable taxation to provide for that is fair. Sin taxes to try to control someone else's behavior? Not so good, IMO.
          Does paying the police/defense department include supporting the War on Drugs, secret wiretaps "to catch terrorists". Because you know what, those are all about trying to control someone's behaviour too (as, fundamentally, is all of police/justice work).

          A lot of people would disagree and think that sin taxes fu
            • My point is that law enforcement is all about behaviour modification too. Law enforcement and sin taxes are two different tools to achieve similar goals.

              It doesn't make sense to charge large taxes on someone stealing or committing murder. However there are certain behaviours that are currently dealt with through police/criminal enforcement that could be better addressed through taxation and education to encourage behaviour modification.

              If people are committing antisocial or self-destructive behaviour, it's

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by phantomlord (38815)
                The problem with sin taxes is once you start taxing based on perceived negative behavior, you set a precedent to tax other perceived negative behaviors. Sin tax on using net access for more than two hours a day(because you might be at home playing WoW, eating junk food and are likely to have coronary disease)? Sin tax for eating fast food (such as buying a salad at McDonalds while that all you can eat spaghetti over at the local italian joint isn't subject)? Sin taxes (beyond generic sales tax) on all that

                • What's wrong with charities, church groups, 12 step programs, etc?

                  Exhibit 1 [wikipedia.org]
                  Exhibit 2 [wikipedia.org]
                  Exhibit 3 [wikipedia.org]
                  I can come up with more

                  What you advocate is saying the government should be the one contractor that you can hire to build your house (because he'll work for no extra charge)

                  For pennies more, then you get into circumventing your own nation on your side. Maybe I could suggest you get a business friendly lawyer [cohenlaw.com] to avoid those pesky citizens.

                  If there's one regulation worth getting rid of, get rid of Taft-Hartley. It amounts to not much more than slave labor.

                  (see the farce known as public schools).

                  See the problem with selective admissions in any form of education. Ironic that to get out of the problem, another one is created (selectivity).

                    • I know that if I don't like a charity or church, I can give my money to someone else... do you know how I can give my money to a competing government if I don't like the way it's run?
                      Yes, you can vote to replace your government with someone who will cancel the program you hate so much.

                      What's that you say? You're outvoted and still have to pay taxes, something that doesn't happen in the private/religious sector?

                      Hmm, I guess you stopped getting telephone service in the 70's and also wouldn't have bought gas f
        • "Everything in between is subjective and, as such, should be left to states and local communities to prevent 218 Representatives + 51 Senators + 1 President from imposing burdensome ideologies on the tens, maybe hundreds, of millions of people who don't support those ideologies."

          So I guess you don't live in a democracy then, because in a democracy the idea is that the government should represent as many points of view as possible, and where your view differs from the government you should suck up and deal b

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nsayer (86181) *
        Taxes are bad for many, many reasons. Not least of which is that they empower the government. The government should have sufficient power to keep the peace, and that's all. Any more power than that always winds up finding the wrong hands (of course people will disagree on whose hands those are) and making us all worse off.

      • Taxes are neither good nor bad

        A tax is a statement by an armed man: Give me your money (to do what I want with it, which I promise you I will use for good purpose) or I'll imprison you or kill you. Taxes are enforced by violence. If violence is a bad thing, then taxes are bad as well. But just as violence can have positive consequences sometimes, eg if used for self-defence against a criminal when attacked and no other methods are available, likewise taxes can have positive consequences as well (funding hospitals, schools, the nece

    • I thought we already "paid" for the internet, in the form of giving a very limited subset of companies a government granted monopoly on the infrastructure to provide said internet.
    • I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access

      Fine, take $5 each month and flush it down your toilet.

      Its the equivalent of giving the federal government your tax payment -- same end result. You're out $5, and the money's been wasted on accomplishing absolutely nothing.
    • How about a tax on people in the city to make sure people out in the 'burbs and rural areas can get their internet service without having to pay the extra cost of wiring low-density areas? We could just add it to the list of covert subsidies for unfair, environmentally-destructive low-density living.
    • I don't see a problem with a tax for internet access.

      I dunno. I see a problem with all taxes until we have a balance budget again by decreasing government spending.

      Of course this might involve ending a war that costs $400 billion dollars a year.

      I pay a little over 1/4 of my income now for state, city, and federal taxes as it is so even though it wouldn't kill me to pay a few more dollars a month for internet taxes, it is salt in the wounds for a government that has no control over its spending habits.
      • In theory, a sales tax on Internet service would go to your state (or city, if it has a local sales tax), so it wouldn't be part of that wasted $400 billion. Whether or not your state does anything useful with the money depends on your state, but the budgetary disaster of the federal government isn't really a valid argument against local taxes.
    • So what you're saying is that we can take as much of your salary away for the "public good" as we want, and you don't really care what the money is used for, as long as it's done in $2/month line items?

    • If it did pass, I would expect to pay an extra two bucks for my high-speed service.

      Well, maybe that's what you'd expect, but that's not what you'd get.

      Way back when, I decided to downgrade my landline to the lowest possible cost. After all, my wife and I both have cellphones for outgoing calls. What do we need to pay $50/mo for a landline for? I called Verizon and asked what their cheapest possible plan was. Unless you are low-income, the cheapest plan was $7. I am not low income, so I oped for $7/mo.

      Time goes by and I get my first phone bill under the new rate. I figured it'd be a

    • Every time a new tax is proposes, all the supporters come out and say it's no big deal if it's only a buck or two. But it never, ever stays at those levels. Income tax was suppose to only be a 1% tax for the richest and look how out of control that's gotten. The George Washington bride in NY started off with a 25 cent toll that was suppose to go away once it was payed off. Well it's been paid off and now it's a $6 toll. Do much traveling? 25% to 50% of those tickets just go to taxes. You add up all the taxe
  • What poppycock. We're not talking about a constitutional amendment here. The suggestion that congress couldn't undo a tax ban that has no sunset date later is just laughable - particularly when it involves the prospect of further picking the taxpayer's pockets (which we know politicians have no qualms about doing).

  • Of course they're not doing it permanently, that way there would be no fund raising on this issue in four years.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JustinKSU (517405)
      Yes, but expiring laws force congress to re-address the issue, while it is much harder to get support for changing a non-expiry law on the books.

      • Re:Nothing is "permanent" when it comes to laws (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WhyDoYouWantToKnow (1039964) on Tuesday October 16 2007, @04:43PM (#21002375)
        Not to mention that in four years they (Congress) get to show their support for the ban all over again. Thus ensuring votes from the soundbite voters. It would be very poor politics to make the ban permanent.
        • Granted, if anyone's interested, we could start poking our senators and congressmen to push the other bill forward before this one expires. A bill stating that 'Instead of the new legislature that states the ban will remain for four years, it will remain indefinitly'

          This will arrive without the pressures that the first one has (the get it done by Nov clause)

          Thoughts?

    • Almost modded that... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RingDev (879105) on Tuesday October 16 2007, @04:41PM (#21002349) Homepage Journal
      I was just going to mod you flame bait, but I figured I'd do the more appropriate thing and ask you to provide a site of your statement. If you fail to provide one, I'll just flame you myself. What's a little karma in exchange for proper moderating?

      -Rick

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by nip1024 (977084)
            The Democrats are in control of the Senate and House. They are the ones that set the day-to-day agenda, have majorities on subcommittees and can block voting on bills. The Republicans can only block a vote by filibustering. Read the following articles and you will see exactly why I blame the Democrats for blocking the bill: Because the Democrats are blocking the bill. It isn't up for debate; it is a verifiable fact.

            http://www.user-groups.net/safenet/internet_tax.html [user-groups.net] [user-groups.net] http://www.captai [captainsquartersblog.com]
    • Yea, cuz taxes==bad. Don't want to get any more complicated than that.
      • Why yes they are. If they were good they wouldn't need be compulsory would they...

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Primary education is also clearly bad by your "compulsory" logic. Obviously, a poorly educated society is a productive one. See third world for examples of the runaway success of this theory.
          • Oh my god you are so right, the countries in the third world have so low taxes... oh wait they don't ! They have kleptocratic government. And they don't have education as well... What ? Many do have efficient cheap private schools ? My my my... But your are right, I am stupid, according to my logic food would be bad since it is well known food can only be provided by the state through compulsory taxation. I'm glad the government taught you government's taxation is good in its government run public school.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Bill Dog (726542)
        Sorry to ruin your fantasy, but it's not "taxes==bad", it's "too much taxes==bad". One line of reasoning is within the questions, are we taxed too little, just about right, or too much. Only if you think we're taxed too little does adding Yet Another Tax seem reasonable. Don't need to get any more complicated than that.
        • Wait, since when did Americans work within a balanced budget?
          • Because that would go contrary to the Democrat party principles:

            There is no such thing as the "Democrat party."

            If something moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it!

            And Republicans have been doing such a wonderful job of keeping government limited.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by eln (21727)
      Sudden outbreak of election year politics. Notice that the ban is set to expire in 4 years, just prior to another big election year.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by DaveWick79 (939388)
        Yes, but 4 years from now, voters are not going to be any more likely to be in favor of paying extra tax $$'s just because they bought something on the internet.

        The reason such a tax is brought up is because state and local government are losing sales tax revenue to Internet purchases. A far better solution would be to charge a fixed sales tax on all out of state purchases, whether via mail, phone, or internet. Funneling those revenues back to local communities would be a big pain in the butt for the vari

        • A far better solution would be to charge a fixed sales tax on all out of state purchases, whether via mail, phone, or internet.

          This is what Indiana does. There's a special section on your state taxes to report out of state purchases. You can guess how effective it is.

      • Despite the media and political parties attempts to make it otherwise *this* is not an election year. The election is 13 months away and while many are focused on the presidential primaries most house and senate races have not even had all potential candidates throw their hat in a ring.

        I wish to God that the trend of pushing 'election' coverage further and further back will reverse itself. We have many US senators (Hillary, Obama, McCain) some Governors (Richardson), and some congressmen (Paul) all spending

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck (704397)
      It's not common sense. Over half the members of congress co-signed the bill to make the moratorium permanent, but they STILL couldn't get it out to the floor for a vote. That's nuts.
      • Well it happens thats why committees have such power in the legislative branch. The Dems used it to prevent Judges from getting a vote on the floor they would have overwhelmingly won. The republics will pull similar tactics when it suite them..

        Most of all they get used for grandstanding 'ie Hillary calling a General on the carpet as untrustworthy'
    • Not quite, maybe in this limited instance. But why is it that the default is taxation unless a bill is passed to ban taxation for some time period? Since when did the government gain the right to claim our money by default? It is our money and it is the government's privilege to be able to tax us, not the other way around.

      And while we're on the subject of taxes, I still say that the income tax is unconstitutional. Sure they got an amendment passed, but they had to con us to do it. Let's hear it for the Fair

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.