Slashdot Log In
Senator Warns of Email Tax This Fall
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu May 24, 2007 10:48 AM
from the maybe-this-time-for-real dept.
from the maybe-this-time-for-real dept.
cnet-declan writes "State and local governments in Washington this week began an all-out lobbying push for the power to tax the Internet, according to our article at News.com. A new Senate bill would usher in Internet sales taxes, and the Federation of Tax Administrators (representing state tax collectors) advised senators at a hearing on Wednesday not to renew a temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes that expires in November. One irked Republican senator warned that unless the moratorium is renewed, we could start seeing email taxes by the end of the year. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey blames it on the Democrats taking over, as do Yahoo and eBay lobbyists. Is this a non-hoax version of bill 602P?"
Related Stories
[+]
The E-mail Tax Hoax Meets The Candidates 104 comments
senort01 writes: "Who couldn't find this humorous? 602P, (the post office will charge for e-mail being sent to make up for lost revenue), a classic Internet hoax, was asked about in the New York Senate debate. Needless to say, both parties aren't going to support it! Thank god!" And for those who prefer their news both more direct and more fun, ContinuousPark writes: "Declan McCullagh's Politechbot mailing list is reporting that the lame e-mail hoax made it into the Clinton-Lazio debate." the_quark helpfully points out not only the famous Bill 602P itself but the USPS's stock page denying its existence.
This discussion has been archived.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.
Fine: Define email (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Informative)
They don't have to. TFAs are actually about taxing sales made over the internet, plus possible taxes on internet connections themselves. The whole email thing appears to be either a submitter or an editor invention.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't see how allowing internet taxes would do any good other than to have states fight over who should collect the taxes on an item shipped over state lines.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, the constitution is clear on this. The states don't have a right to charge taxes on stuff shipped across state lines. Why are we even having this discussion?
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:5, Insightful)
Because Congress (both state and federal) likes to keep the Supreme Court on its toes? It certainly seems like it sometimes.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if there is one thing our government will work hard to to its lighten your wallet.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:5, Interesting)
You are correct -- the states can't charge tax on goods shipped across their borders. I.e., they can't have a "California import tariff," as if they were a separate nation from the rest of the country, or something.
However, the Court has allowed states to charge tax on goods used or consumed in their state. This is how sales tax works: they don't charge the tax when the widgets cross the border from the neighboring state -- that would be illegal due to the Constitution -- but they charge the tax on the sale when it occurs in the state, or on the use of the item if you bought it elsewhere and are using it in the state. (Most people don't realize this, but if you buy something via mail order and use it in a state that charges sales tax, you're legally obligated to pay the same tax rate on it, only as a "use tax" instead of a "sales tax." All states that have sales taxes also have use taxes.)
That's how they get around the unconstitutionality. If it seems like hair-splitting, I'd probably agree with you, and there's a chance that if states really started getting obnoxious with their tax structures, to the point where it was interfering with commerce between states, then the USSC could step in and basically say that they have de facto violated the Constitution by creating barriers to trade
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Informative)
If the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state, then it isn't taxed. At least in practical terms, that is.
In theory, the states typically think they are due tax, and it is supposed to be voluntarily paid by the consumer on the consumer's state tax return. But without a physical business presence in said state, there is no good way to enforce that.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Insightful)
A: His lips are moving.
And that is about as close to bi-partisan cooperation as Congress will ever get.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Informative)
You really didn't read TFA, did you? Understandable, really, /. being what it is.
The last two paragraphs were, quite specifically, about taxing e-mail.
The upshot? Federal tax agencies express no interest in an e-mail tax, but if the internet service tax moratorium expires you can count on at least a few lesser jurisdictions (states, municipalities, etc.) to attempt to impose come crack-brained e-mail tax (or something similar). I'd expect in that case they'd just levy a flat or proportionate fee and call it a message communication tax or something. (Rather than try to define e-mail in some measurable and definite sense and then monitor your traffic to count the number of times you do measured and defined thing X.)
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Informative)
In the US -- and the article is about US taxes -- most landlines are billed a flat monthly fee for local service. Taxes are charged on this service, but in proportion to the total bill, not the number or duration of local calls made. Taxes on your local service would be the same if you made 0 or several thousand minutes of local calls. If you called a cab long distance, you would pay per minute for the call and be taxed on its cost, but that's not likely.
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fine: Define email (Score:5, Insightful)
And I already pay a variety of local and state taxes on my internet monthly bill.
Wait... (Score:3, Interesting)
Supply Side is better for gov't revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, if you buy a book off Amazon.com, Amazon would pay local taxes to the "streamlined sales tax" system they're proposing. Of course, the consumer would bear the expenses of such a tax.
They (I'm lumping all the tax maggots into one pronoun) also want to impose a monthly internet use tax, i.e. a DSL tax.
What the Dems don't get is that the supply side approach is much better as was demonstrated during the 90s when many successful companies were founded such as Amazon and EBay. Although local sales taxes are avoided, these companies nonetheless contribute mightily to the tax base through employee income taxes, employee purchase of local homes, cars, food, travel services, and other products, corporate income tax, capital gains and other stock transaction related taxes, etc.
The internet revolution demonstrated the superiority of supply side economics. The successful companies generate the most revenue streams for the government in an organic manner. Imposing a regressive, universal tax on transactions will probably not destroy the current giants but will certainly discourage new companies from flourishing. Instead, incompetence will be rewarded because local governments will get all kinds of revenue they didn't deserve and will become totally dependent on it.
Then there are the unknown future uses of the internet that most of us can't even conceive. What about internet-based medical care? A surgeon on another continent operating on a patient via precision remote control, or physicians providing consultative services remotely--all of this will get taxed, and the middleware companies that are trying to market these services will get taxed to death before they can even get off the ground.
Monthly internet connection tax--what a slippery slope! Next they'll be taxing by the byte. Ultimately the cost of doing business for everyone will go up, including bricks and mortar stores which are also dependent on the internet today to run their businesses. Salaries will necessarily go down, people will have less discretionary income as a result, and the U.S. economy will be further Europeanized.
It will then become even more economically attractive to outsource manufacturing and service jobs. This is all to China and India's benefit. Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in.
Insightful and you didn't even catch the AUTHOR? (Score:4, Informative)
Ahem:
http://politechbot.com/docs/enzi.sales.tax.bill.0
"Thank you Hilary and the Dems for destroying the last bits of American competitiveness, and thank you to the American people for voting these imbeciles in."
It would appear that the likes of YOU voted these particular imbeciles in:
http://enzi.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseActio
Well then... (Score:5, Funny)
If it's an out-bound tax, could it be used to make SPAM economically unrewarding?
Well, why not just (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, why not just (Score:4, Funny)
SLOW DOWN AHEAD! 35Kbps through the toll!
Re:The internet is pregnant? (Score:4, Funny)
DAMNIT! (Score:5, Funny)
Now take that you bastards!
Re:DAMNIT! (Score:5, Funny)
One step at a time, dude. First switch to Fmail, then Gmail.
Sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
At least G#mail is pretty upscale compared to Email.
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Funny)
Democrats, right, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. That's right. Republicans want big government in your computer and want big government's hand in your wallet.
Re:Democrats, right, of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Vote for Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Brief Overview of Congressman Pauls Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com]
Re:Vote for Ron Paul (Score:4, Informative)
That is a bit misleading. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes there are al
Re:Democrats, right, of course (Score:4, Insightful)
"The Internet" is not a tangible thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Just how do they expect to enforce their levy of taxes?
Trying to tax the internet is somewhat like trying to tax other forms of communication. The best they'll be able to do is tax the businesses that provide a service to connect to the internet (telcos and ISPs).
That reminds me of something... wasn't the Stamp Act one of those "taxation without representation" things that pissed off the revolutionaries in the 13 colonies? Hmmm...
The problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the problem is only idiots run for election.
New protocol could kill spam (Score:5, Interesting)
When a spammer spoofs my e-mail address (Score:3, Insightful)
What happens when I'm in a coffee shop using an anonymous mailer?
Do I have to attach my credit card number to each e-mail and, as a corrallary, can I not send e-mail 10 days later when all credit cards are canceled until further notice?
Pass new laws that fuck over honest people (Score:4, Insightful)
However, legitimite businesses and users would be more likely to attempt to pay this tax - which would mean keeping track of outgoing emails.. to how many people.. resends.. attachments.. sizes?
Come on Congress! Get a fucking grasp of the ideas you're trying to make into law before you even talk about acting on them. Congress seems to be full of a bunch of morons making snap decisions based on ideas they cannot begin to comprehend.
The only thing Congress should even talk about taxing is Internet-based sales.. Taxing data that essentially costs ZERO should be taxed at a flat rate, to be fair, which would mean ZERO tax income. They could even set the rate at 500% for all I care.
Looks like standard political plays (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like it's just a cheap call to try to get some votes and cheap political points in. After all, the next round of elections will probably be heavily Internet based, and they're only a year away. What better way to rally people who haven't decided yet by saying their precious Internet is not going to be the tax-free haven it once was? (Especially given how the current Republican in power is potentially making life difficult for Republicans in swing states. Might as well try to score some cheap political points amongst bloggers and stuff when they post "OH NOES, INTERNET TAXES!!!!" when it's just a bill being discussed, and chances are better that the moratorium may end under a Democrat-controlled senate. They never actually said what chances are, after all. If it was likely to end with a 1% chance under Republicans and 1.5% under Democrats, well, chances are better (but no way it'll pass)...
You may now resume your "OH NOES, INTERNET TAXES ARE HERE!!!!" posts.
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Familiar (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Republicans seem to be doing the same thing. Propose a BS bill, then claim "it's the Democrats' fault!"
I F-ING HATE POLITICS
Everyone calm down... (Score:5, Informative)
First, the bill in the story has nothing to do with taxing internet email. It has to do with, specifically, sales taxes on goods purchased over the internet.
The second part of the story is about the temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes which limits taxes on items such as email, web surfing, etc.
Needless to say, these things are completely different. Leave it to crap|net to mix them all up to get your feathers ruffled.
In the first case, the bill being sponsored by Mr Envi, I kind of understand where he is coming from. States and local governments get a lot of their revenue from sales tax. Since there has been an increasing number of purchases made online, state and local governments and losing out on that sales tax money, which means they need to raise other taxes (e.g. property, fuel) in order to compensate. This hurts everyone, even those that do not own computers, and especially hurts the elderly who live on limited income. This bill also simplifies how states collect taxes for retailers to reduce paperwork, and has an exemption for e-tailers that earn less than $5 million a year doing internet sales.
On the temporary moratorium limiting broadband taxes, this is something that has been renewed every couple of years for the last several under the Republican-led congress. The idea is that general broadband services are not taxed, such as email and web surfing, at the federal and state levels. It does not appear this will be renewed which means *new* taxes could (and probably will) be added to Internet users.
Now that it is clear...
While some may point out that Mr. Enzi is a Republican raising taxes, he's not so much raising taxes as he is 1) simplifying sales taxes; 2) ensuring the "current" level of taxes imposed by states; 3) thus reducing property taxes; 4) helping maintain state governments who are having financial problems due to lack of sales tax revenue.
On the other hand, the Democrats, if they do not renew the ban on broadband taxes, will be creating new taxes that will impact every internet user. These are not taxes that are being avoided or taxes that are being suppressed.... these are NEW taxes.. and we all know how the Democrats love their taxes!
Re:Everyone calm down... (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans raise taxes --> that's really lowering taxes.
Democrats don't raise taxes --> that's really raising taxes.
ORWELLIZATION COMPLETE.
gg gop
In a nation where... (Score:4, Insightful)
When someone spends $40,000,000 on a $400,000 a year job, you can assume they have been corrupted. Watch them like a hawk. Always.
Typical Political FUD (Score:4, Interesting)
When reality doesn't side with your politics, you just make stuff up or pull it out of your behind.... Kudos to the senator's staffer who found an 8 year old story and make it sound like an "impending threat of dire circumstance!" when it is complete fiction.
None of these proposals "tax"... The two issues are whether sites like Amazon.com should collect sales taxes for out of state sales (like any major catalog company like Sears has been doing for generations), and whether municipalities can tax internet access like they do phone and cable... The original moratorium was designed to encourage greater participation in the Internet. that goal has been accomplished, and further subsidizing it probably makes little sense.
Yes, it sucks.... no one likes paying taxes, but the roads don't get built by themselves, and the cops don't protect your house for free. The money has to come from somewhere.
Thanks,
Mike
Let's cut to the chase (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's cut to the chase:
Re:One doesnt justify the other (Score:5, Interesting)
Ummm... Huh?
States are forbidden from taxing interstate commerce. In some states if you buy something from out of state you the customer are supposed to pay the tax.
How can ALL the Retailers be required to pays sales tax on out of state items (depending on your state)?
1. I don't think you know what the world ALL means.
2. It isn't true. You must pay sales tax if you have a presence in that state. If you have a store, sales rep, office, or warehouse.