California Lawmaker Proposes Music Download Tax 326
modemac writes "Sacramento, California Assemblyman Charles Calderon wants to expand a 75-year-old sales tax on 'tangible personal property' to include music downloads from iTunes and other music-download sites. The tax would specifically apply to music downloads, but the estimate used in this article for revenue generated by 'Net downloading also "includes pornography downloads." The measure, AB 1956, will be considered on Monday, April 14th."
Tangible Personal Property? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, what does "tangible" mean? To me, it means something a bit more permanent than bits on a disk. After all, if someone gets near it with a magnet, there goes your "tangible" property. The same cannot be said for a car, a bookshelf, a can of paint, etc.
Is it considered property when you don't "Own" it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy an iTunes track, it's mine, sorta. But, I can't resell it, or give it away, or what have you. It's not tangible by any meaningful sense of that word. It's not like in a bankruptcy proceeding they could seize my music collection to help pay off my debtors.
And, porn? Really? They think people are gonna pay tax on all that free porn they're pulling off (ahem) the internet?
Seriously, yet another lawmaker who wants to monetize the internets to try to generate some cash or protect a special interest, and who doesn't actually know enough about the topic at hand to say anything reasonable. Hopefully, someone can slap some sense into him.
Cheers
Politician: A.Raise Taxes B.Limit Freedoms (Score:2, Interesting)
Why do they always seem to be on the prowl to find yet another way to tax us the public?
I wish somehow, we could pass laws in each state AND nationally, that there be a mortorium on any new tax being instated. For like 5 years minimum...NO NEW TAXES, and even with that...no new taxes without equivalent tax being recinded, or cut in govt. spending.
My God...the more I read about govt. official wanting to tax us in new and creative ways....and making laws to restrict more things we can no longer do (especially the nanny laws about what we can not do with our bodies etc(...the more I respect 'gridlock'.
Sadly...somehow this tax and restrict thing seems to somehow be implated in even new politicians shortly after being elected...I suspect they catch it from other older members. I suppose the only way we could fix it is to somehow make a clean sweep of all those currently in office, not allow any of them back in for several years at least...and start from scratch.
Re:Can't have it both ways... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is complete horsepuckey. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, it does not solve any of the "problems". Any of them.
Second, everybody is being charged for a "problem" (the quotes are on purpose... I don't agree that there even is a real problem here) caused by a relative few.
Third, the money is going to the wrong people.
And so on. It's just a BAD idea.
Define "download" (Score:5, Interesting)
in the case of pr0n, even if you don't download it to your hard drive, if you can see it in your browser, you have downloaded it. (duh, you got the data somehow) would this same principle apply to net radio, streaming music, youtube, etc? makes you wonder how far they will run with it.
Is this really a new issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Where To Pay the Tax? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I live in Vermont and I buy a song from iTunes, which is based in California.
Vermont claims that people owe it sales tax because they're in Vermont and buying something in another state that they could be buying here. If a Vermont resident goes to another state with no or lower sales tax to buy a car, Vermont requires that they pay Vermont's sales tax equal to the difference between the two when they register it in Vermont. There's also a section on Vermont tax returns that asks state residents to estimate the sales tax we would have paid if we'd bought something locally instead of through a Web site that, at present, implies that if they buy music through iTunes they should be paying state tax on the purchase.
The California proposal seems to think consumers are going, in a virtual sense, to California to buy my music. Because the transaction happens in California, they want to collect tax.
The Vermont requirement is apparently widely ignored and impossible to enforce unless the out-of-state business collects the tax for it. The California proposal would be enforceable only as long as the iTunes music store is hosted there. It would likely be moved off-shore if this proposal passes.
This will likely take Federal legislation or a Supreme Court decision defining the basis for where a tax is levied: on the location of the consumer or the location of the business. If the former, every business with a Web presence will have to incorporate 50+ different tax rules based on customer location, possibly more if they serve international customers.
It would be simpler would be to tax where the business is located, but then most states would object to the revenue loss and businesses would move their Web operations to states with low or no sales tax or off-shore (which would then likely cause Congress to pass legislation allowing states to tax their residents for out-of-state purchases anyway).
As always, it's about money which is of course is the root of all evil, which makes us a really evil society.
This probably won't get read... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Will only encourage "illegal" downloading (Score:3, Interesting)
FBI Agent to P2P file sharer: "You know, when you illegally download, you avoid paying your taxes. When you avoid paying your taxes, the government can't fight terrorists. You want the government to fight terrorists, don't you?"
Attitudes Like This Make Me Sick (Score:3, Interesting)
And this is nothing new. Some years ago now there was a ballot measure to add 1 cent to the gasoline tax to fund mass transit. Now, of course, people driving cars already aren't users of mass transit and therefore don't wish to pay for it. The ballot measure was soundly defeated!
Wonder of wonders, some bright light in the tax department in Sacramento SUDDENLY DISCOVERED that, Hey, we can apply Sales Tax to gasoline, which we never did before because we already had a gasoline tax. And on top of that, we can apply Sales Tax to THE ENTIRE PRICE of a gallon of gasoline, resulting in what should never be allowed, A TAX ON A TAX!
FRUTHERMORE, Sales Tax goes into the General Fund, meaning we can SPEND IT ON ANYTHING WE LIKE including mass transit, or not. That's still in effect in California, which is one of the two reasons why CALIFORNIA HAS SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE GASOLINE IN THE COUNTRY! (Hawaii at least has the excuse that they have to import all their gasoline for their prices.)
This is timely because California is at it again trying to get registered car owners to pay for mass transit. And now it's IN ADDITION to the sales tax on gasoline!!
Re:Tangible Personal Property? (Score:2, Interesting)
I feel absolutely no sympathy for a state and federal problem that has the answer staring them in the face. *shrug*