Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States The Internet Government Politics

U.S. Congress Poised To Vote On Internet Tax Ban 409

Posted by CowboyNeal from the wallets-thankful dept.
jangobongo writes "'After more than a year of leaving the threat of new state- and city-levied taxes looming over Internet access providers and online merchants, Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access,' according to eWeek. The House had approved a permanent moratorium while the Senate had approved a temporary ban. Members of the House are pushing to compromise and to vote today on the Senate's approach. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

U.S. Congress Poised To Vote On Internet Tax Ban More

U.S. Congress Poised To Vote On Internet Tax Ban

Comments Filter:
  • $1 a junk Email ... or a day in prison ...
    • No, Bush's policy has always been to ease taxes on the rich while shifting them to lower icomes. The question is... how can Bush tax the poor users of the internet while letting the rich shop for free?

      • Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers? (Score:4, Funny)

        by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:19PM (#10861166) Homepage
        No fees on high speed, high fees on modem.

        That will also kill AOL as a side effect, but we have to do what we have to do for National Security and The Country...

      • Actually, Bush's policy has been to ease taxes on everyone (with a focus on rich people) while shifting them to future generations. That's what the huge budget deficit (Congress just voted to raise the debt ceiling another $800,000,000,000.00 they're spending money so fast in Washington) does. If you're under 18, you can't vote, but your parents can, and they care about your future (hopefully). If you haven't been born yet, your parents are partying or getting drunk or attending college or posting Slas

        • Re:Can they levy a tax on spammers? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Peyna ( 14792 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @01:54AM (#10862384) Homepage
          Not only that, but his plan to "privatize" social security is founded on the same principles.

          In short, he wants to phase in a system where part of your social security taxes go into a private account that you can choose how to invest, and the rest go to the general public fund.

          So, what is going to happen is that the amount of money currently moving into the social security fund will drop, the money moving out will continue to rise with the number of people retiring and living longer. Things won't really even out until those who are 16 when the program is implemented retire. The only way to fix this gap is to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. Of course, Bush won't raise taxes or cut spending, so when finally get a president with the guts to do that, he'll be portrayed as a horrible person who wants to stick his hands in our pockets and rob us. When the real thief is the person that created the deficit in the first place.

          I find it amazing that while telling us that "privatizing" social security is putting our money in our control, what it is really doing is the government is not only forcing me to pay for everyone else's well-being, they're forcing me to invest some of my own money.

          I wonder if the government will only allow me to invest in funds they approve of and don't violate their morals.

          A few interesting links related to political parties and economics

          Federal Deficit by Political Party [hevanet.com]
          Jobs by President and Party [bovik.org]
          Economic policies of Bush administration result in more abortions [prnewswire.com]
    • Nah, I propose they be forced to donate one organ per junk e-mail...

  • Excellent idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:12PM (#10861118)
    I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is. As more and more of the economy shifts to the Internet, keeping Washington's greedy mitts out of it will mean a defacto tax cut for everyone.

    (If you doubt that we are overtaxed, look at the money wasted on paying millionaires like Ted Kennedy a Congressional salary, no-bid Halliburton contracts, fish atlases, and pork barrel projects so multi-millionaire moguls don't have to pay to build their own stadiums).

    • Re:Excellent idea (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mtrisk ( 770081 )
      Agreed. If they tax us, the government should put that money back for the public's benefit. How would we benefit from an internet tax? Libre Fiber connections, courtesy of the government? I don't think so. It's simply a money grab.

    • Re:Excellent idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pclminion ( 145572 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:24PM (#10861210)
      money wasted on paying millionaires like Ted Kennedy a Congressional salary

      So you're saying different Senators should be treated differently depending on who they are and how much money they have? Who gets to decide this complicated set of rules and exceptions? You?

      • whoa there... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Cryptnotic ( 154382 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:35PM (#10861284)
        I think he was inplying that Ted Kennedy is a worthless sack and his salary is a waste of everyone's money.

        I'm actually in favor of the idea that congressmen should be paid by the people of the state they represent. Who is it they represent anyway? Do they really represent the people of Massachusetts for example, if their paycheck comes from the United States Treasury?

        • think he was inplying that Ted Kennedy is a worthless sack and his salary is a waste of everyone's money.

          I would be all for paying them ten times their current salaries if they would just do their job and then go home. These freaks living in D.C. dreaming up stupid ways to waste money irritates me. I think they should ban all air conditioners and heaters from the District.

          Speaking of getting paid: How about a job with Google [vle.org]?

          • No, that means they're overpaid -- they should be paid nothing (or maybe just minimum wage) for politicking, so they're forced to go home (to the state they represent) and have real jobs also, just like everybody else.

            Being an elected official should be considered community service, and a necessary evil, not a career (in other words, I agree with you)!
            • they should be paid nothing (or maybe just minimum wage) for politicking, so they're forced to go home (to the state they represent) and have real jobs also, just like everybody else

              That won't help. These people have to finance campaigns, and decreasing the salary would only increase the percentage of very wealthy people in office. Is that really a blow for the average guy?

            • But then, wouldn't only the independently wealthy be able to be full time congressman? Ancient Athenians learned this lesson, and decided to pay their elected officials.
        • Do they really represent the people of Massachusetts for example, if their paycheck comes from the United States Treasury?

          You misspelled "Disney, Halliburton, Pfizer, Microsoft, Monsanto, etc..."

    • Re:Excellent idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MorboNixon ( 130386 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:35PM (#10861280)
      Perhaps your argument isn't so much that we're overtaxed, but that the proceeds from taxes aren't being spent wisely?

      I agree with both points. I think we are overtaxed, but I think the far larger problem is that congress does not spend the money appropriately.
      • We aren't so much overtaxed as our money just isn't be used effectively.

      • Re:Excellent idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sysopd ( 617656 )

        I think we are overtaxed, but I think the far larger problem is that congress does not spend the money appropriately.

        I believe the problem is the ever-increasing scope of government. The way to effectively solve a problem is to be involved in it as your profession- a part of the industry, with competition. "Necessity is the mother of invention," and in capitalism profit/growth is the necessity and competition is the catalyst.

        Congress attempts to solve a problem by throwing money at it. But in order

    • Re:Excellent idea (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:13PM (#10861478) Journal
      I hope the ban passes. Americans are badly overtaxed as it is.

      While the end result may be ok, is it really the place of the federal government to dictate what states can and can't tax? But it's not like the 10th amendment means anything anymore.

    • try england (Score:2, Funny)

      by Bad Ad ( 729117 )
      you think you're over taxed in american?

      try living in england.
      once you're finished saying "what the fuck" after your first visit to a petrol statiom, let me know. :)

  • Lets hope so (Score:5, Funny)

    by Realistic_Dragon ( 655151 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:12PM (#10861121) Homepage
    If they tax the internet the real geeks can go back to fido/bbs and we can let the useless languish in commercialised hell.

  • it was always unlikely (Score:3, Funny)

    by howhardcanitbetocrea ( 671190 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:13PM (#10861128)
    it was obvious, think about it and the possiblility of the US taxing me in Australia is pretty remote - unless they get the RIAA to track me down.

  • RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greg01851 ( 720452 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:15PM (#10861141)
    "Congress is poised to reimpose a moratorium on taxing Internet access" Internet Access... not all internet purchases... i.e. your bill from your ISP will be a bit lower, unless you use AOHell :)
    • your bill from your ISP will be a bit lower

      How many jurisdictions currently tax Internet access, and how many ISPs will lower your bill, or just raise it up to the rate you were paying with the tax on top of it anyway?

  • current tally: (Score:5, Funny)

    by bersl2 ( 689221 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:20PM (#10861175) Journal
    good things Congress has done this week: 1
    bad things Congress has done this week: a lot more

    That's better than most weeks...

  • NO TAXATION! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sciguy125 ( 791065 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:21PM (#10861189)
    Personally, I don't think that they should be allowed to tax any communications. Actually, I take that back. They can tax it if they only use the money to pay for it.

    Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

    • Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

      Shut Up!!! Dude! They're bad enough without the help. Want to suggest something else so they can go for the triple?

    • Re:NO TAXATION! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by derkaas ( 654904 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @11:23PM (#10861837)
      Taxing communications is like taxing air. We all need to communicate with others the same way we all need to breath. Why not just tax people on the streets for talking to each other?

      I don't disagree with your sentiment, but your argument for untaxing communications could be extended to just about anything. For example, food and a place to sleep at night are just as essential, yet both, especially the latter, are taxed heavily by many governments.

  • I *so* hope this bill passes! Keeping Internet access tax-free will aid poor people in getting online by keeping the price of access limited to market rates.

    Adding a tax on top of that price would only drive out people who would otherwise get online.
    • Yup, much better to add a sales tax to their food, as my state does. Being able to get online is so much more important than being able to eat.

      Frankly, this bill is horrible. I can afford $4/month tacked onto my cable modem bill. A family at the poverty line has a much harder time affording $40/month tacked onto their grocery bill.

  • How about utilizing the billions upon billions (trillions?) of annual tax dollars and eliminating the bullshit and spend it wisely. Oh yeah, because nobody can agree on what's a wise tax.

  • Is this your job? (Score:5, Informative)

    by maximilln ( 654768 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:28PM (#10861240) Homepage Journal
    Consider: "The right to regulate the internet"

    Read the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there any mention of the internet in that document? No? Let's have a look at Amendment 10:

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

    Okay. So the "right to regulate the internet" is not under the authority of the Feds because it's reserved to the States or the People.

    "What of interstate commerce?", say the trolls.

    Let me point you to Amendment 9

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The "right to regulate the internet" has already been established as retained by the States or the people and, therefore, the interpretation of "interstate commerce" can not be enumerated to include it. It is forbidden to expand the meaning of interstate commerce to include anything not specifically defined in the Constitution.

    Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me. Don't like it because 95% of what the Feds do is disqualified by this assessment? Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.
    • That's a very bizarre reading.

      The power to regulate interstate commerce is delegated to the United States. It is not also prohibited to the several states, so therefore they can regulate it as well to a certain degree, though the United States always has the last word based upon the commerce power and the supremecy clause. (See jurisprudence regarding the negative commerce clause)

      The regulation of interstate commerce is not a right, it is a power. Therefore Amend. 9 is not relevant. Rather, you'd have to
      • At best I can see an argument based on Section 10 Clause 2, which states,"Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws...", but at best that indicates that Congress should address the states on a case by case basis, and still is not empowered to pass a blanket law.

        As for the power to regulate interstate commerce (Section 8, Clause 3), I still do not agree that this c
        • Interstate commerce includes not merely the act of an interstate commercial transaction, but also the vehicles by which it might occur, entities engaged in it, the goods in motion, etc.

          So it's a tax on the line because the line can be used in interstate commerce.

          This isn't a very contentious thing. I'd get all up in arms over the Wickard case first. It's much more expansive.
    • Maybe you should move to a communist nation so that you can be happy using the feds to siphon everyone else's cash to assuage your penile deficiency.

      Hey, how'd you know about my little problem?

      Regarding Amendment X: The power to regulate interstate commerce is given to the Federal government.

      Regarding Amendment IX: The right to regulate the Internet has not been established as retained by the states or "the people." In fact, the Internet was created by the United States government, so from its birth

      • The power to regulate interstate commerce cannot be enumerated to include the power to regulate internet access. Regardless of who created the internet, there is not right to regulate communication access as provided in the Constitution. As such it is reserved to the States or the People.

        The "interpretation of the Constitution" is all bogus. As clearly outlined in Amendment 10 anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is simply not a responsibility of the Feds.
    • Generic response from congresscritter: "What is this 'Constitution' thing of which you speak?"
    • The penile deficiency comment adds an unnecessary element of mockery to an otherwise reasonable post, and it is overused too.
    • They know that they are not allowed to levy taxes on internet service providers. It is the states, counties, and cities, however that want to tax consumers of internet services in the same way they currently tax telephone services. They are currently prohibited from doing so by the federal government, but that might change.
    • Although I agree with you that I'd prefer the Federal Government stay out of things like this, your interpretation of the Constitution is not correct. Or, at least it's not correct based upon existing case law.

      I point you to this excellent breakdown [wikipedia.org] at Wikipedia.org. The Interstate Commerce clause, as it's typically referred to, has been the source of considerable Constitutional debate for a long, long time. Here is the actual verbage:

      "Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution e

    • Don't like it because the politicians haven't checked the 9th or 10th since the early 1800s? These are the knobs you vote for--don't cry to me.

      Does this mean that you don't vote? Or that you haven't voted since the 1800s?

    • Wow. This is quite misinformed. First of all, States don't have rights. Only people do. Amendment 10 talks about powers (which States can have). Amendment 9 talks about rights (which according to our founders are God-given, and God didn't give them to States but to people).

      Further, protection of people's rights to engage in interstate commerce free from taxation by the states is precisely what the founders had in mind when they put in the Interstate Commerce Clause. It wasn't until much later that Co

  • Ban on taxing access, not taxing purchases (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MaineCoon ( 12585 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:28PM (#10861241) Homepage
    So many posts here seem to assume this article is about taxing purchases made over the internet. That is not the case. This is a ban on taxing ACCESS (i.e, a tax on your DSL/cable/dialup services).

    RTFA, people.

  • Well, Duh (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aredubya74 ( 266988 ) on Thursday November 18, 2004 @09:37PM (#10861293)
    President Bush is expected to sign the legislation when it is passed.

    Of course he will. He has yet to veto a single bill [google.com] as President. It's easy to not have to, when your party controls both houses of Congress and is on the edge of a long-term conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
    • Unbelievable. President Bush and the Republican Congress are actually poised to do something good for us geeks--keeping internet access tax-free--and some slashbot still manages to find a way to turn it into an anti-Bush troll. Simply stunning.
      • I'm not a slashbot, troll. The point is that other presidents whose party also controlled both houses had the balls to veto bad legislation. GWB doesn't, and won't. He's a Party Man through and through. This may be an example some of us can get behind, although any geek who also can deal with the proposed ban on commercial fast-forwarding doesn't deserve his/her geek stripes.
    • Your comment about the Supreme Court assumes that the more liberal Justices will leave will Bush is in office. They're not morons. Expect the more aged conservative Justices to leave, and expect the liberal Justices to hang in as long as they can and hope for a President that will replace them with a like-minded person.
  • The bill is not on Sales tax on internet purchases but rather the access tax. I think if that revenue is used to increase broadband access all over the country, it would be a great idea. I mean, gas is taxed to pay for the roads. The same should work with internet.
  • thousands of websites move away from network solutions DNS service and american hosting to european-based servers/DNS. This will only serve to lower our competitiveness in the global market place.
    • Yeah, good point. This Congress might as well pass a bill declaring itself to be the Bestest Dang Congress Ever and Also The Handsomest For Forevern'ever! The long-term effect will probably be the same. There are only three things certain in life, death, taxes and trite, pithy sayings.
  • Hands off, you greedy bastards.
    You're not going to tax me and use it to fund your wars and invasions and occupations that all your blood thirsty chicken hawks are hell bent on starting and waging.

    This is nothing less than taxation without representation.

    Just remember, the American Revolution was started over taxation without representation and they weren't anywhere near as burdened as we are now.

    Hell, we would have been better off to let the Britts keep America because the current system is bleeding the

  • For all those not reading the article... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cryptnotic ( 154382 ) * on Thursday November 18, 2004 @10:00PM (#10861420)
    ...this is about the federal government preventing the states from levying taxes on internet access. States currently tax telephone services, and some states would also like to tax internet services. The federal government currently forbids this, however they might stop forbidding it.

    This does not mean that the federal government would tax internet services. That may or may not be within their power. That is a different constitutional argument though.

    This does not mean that your state would charge taxes on internet services. It would still be up to your state legislature and governor to decide on such a tax, approve it, and implement it.

  • I hope they keep a ban on sales taxes. It would make it very difficult for a small shop to do business if they are collecting taxes for every tax agency in the US. They article wasn't totally clear if they are talking about that or not, but sure hope so.

  • The real problems... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Antony-Kyre ( 807195 ) on Friday November 19, 2004 @01:44AM (#10862356)
    1. Wasteful government spending.

    Some say spending over a half trillion per year on "defense" purposes would qualify. Some say spending hundreds of dollar on comfy chairs would qualify. This subject is very opinionated.

    2. The dreaded April 15th, income tax day.

    Making criminals out of those who may not be able to afford to pay, or simply mess up. And allowing the evil geniuses to reap the benefits either through loopholes or ways of not reporting it.

    Note: Some say a consumption tax (sales tax) would hurt the poor. Consider a consumption tax with rebates to offset the poverty level. No one can 'really' avoid paying a sales tax, unless the business is crooked.

    3. In this so called democracy, it's really a republic, where we represent people who are suppose to be our voice. But nothing prevents them from really following that through.

    A more democratic system would be nice, where citizens could speak their mind. e-Governments, no salary elected officials for representation when needed, and instant direct voting.

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't get suckered in by the comments -- they can be terribly misleading. Debug only code. -- Dave Storer

Close