What is Digg?118 Comments
- dracostimpy, on 11/02/2007, -5/+88DON'T TAX ME, BRO!
- TheWiseNoob, on 11/02/2007, -1/+79For once, Bush actually got something right.
"I urge Congress to keep the Internet tax-free -- and to get a bill to my desk that I can sign," - NightVortez, on 10/29/2007, -1/+45$1 for every hour you spend on the internet, people on digg would go broke in a week.
- jsd8cc, on 10/29/2007, -2/+41"By keeping the Internet tax-free and affordable, Congress can encourage Internet use for distance learning, telemedicine, commerce and other important services," Sen. Ted ["The Internet is a Series of Tubes"] Stevens
...
"I urge Congress to keep the Internet tax-free -- and to get a bill to my desk that I can sign," Bush said.
In other news, diggers' heads implode from excessive cognitive dissonance. - commiecat, on 10/29/2007, -1/+37Ted Stevens, too. It's kinda ***** up to think that I'm in agreement with both Stevens and Bush over Internet rulings.
- formerssgtusmc, on 10/29/2007, -0/+28Why in hell do they keep extending the moritorium? Jeez, just make it frickin permanent and move on
- Ghoztt, on 10/29/2007, -2/+23How about we STOP SPENDING OUR TAX DOLLARS LIKE A TROPHY WIFE WITH TEN CREDIT CARDS!? Stop corporate subsidies, stop welfare and get the hell out of Iraq? Then we wouldn't have to tax the internet, let alone pay for all these insane Government programs.
LIVE FREE OR DIE. - mysteri0usdrx, on 10/29/2007, -1/+22I'm pretty sure the internet would asplode with nerd rage if Bush was against this bill.
- sugablonde, on 11/02/2007, -2/+15Accounts receivable tax, Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), Building permit tax, Capital gains tax, CDL license tax, Cigarette tax, Corporate income tax, Court fines (indirect taxes), Death Tax, Dog license tax, Estate Tax, Excise tax, Federal income tax, Federal unemployment tax (FUTA), FICA tax, Fishing license tax, Food license tax, Fuel permit tax, Gasoline tax (42 cents per gallon), Generation Skipping Tax, Gift tax, Hunting license tax, Inheritance tax interest expense (tax on the money), Inventory tax IRS interest charges (tax on top of tax), IRS penalties (tax on top of tax), Liquor tax, Local income tax, Luxury taxes, Marriage license tax, Medicare tax, Property tax, Real estate tax, Recreational vehicle tax, Road toll booth taxes, Road usage taxes (Truckers), Sales tax and equivalent use tax, School tax, Septic permit tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security tax, State income tax, State unemployment tax (SUTA), Telephone federal excise tax, Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes, Telephone federal universal service fee tax, Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax, Telephone state and local tax, Telephone usage charge tax, Toll bridge taxes, Toll tunnel taxes, Tourist development tax, Traffic fines (indirect taxation), Trailer registration tax, Transfer tax and Generation-skipping transfer tax, Utility taxes, Vehicle license registration tax, Vehicle sales tax, Watercraft registration tax, Well permit tax, Wheel tax, Workers compensation tax
ummm...please, no more taxes...we're already drowning in them. - lucidguru, on 10/27/2007, -1/+14As soon as they try to tax the internet everything will go underground. Taxing the internet is a foolish idea and anyone who understands economics knows it. Look at what "taxing" music (artificially creating scarcity by charging $0.99+) has done... it's pushed the music trading market underground onto bit torrent servers. Regulation and enforcement is impossible. The gov't knows that as soon as they try to tax the big guys like amazon, ebay, etc... people will move towards systems that don't have accountability (e.g. craigslist) and they will have even less control and less accountability than they do now.
- rootnik, on 10/27/2007, -1/+13LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE!!!!
- insomniac8400, on 10/27/2007, -3/+14Sales tax makes more sense than property tax and income tax.
- allahuakbar, on 10/27/2007, -0/+11Oh my god, that's gonna be a new meme isn't it
- monospaced, on 10/27/2007, -0/+10This has absolutely nothing to do with online sales tax, that is regulated poorly already, and has been for awhile. This is about an overall internet tax, probably in the form of a regulatory fee on your ISP's bill.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/27/2007, -1/+11Already is. Actually, it's prolly on its way out by now...
- Damian91, on 10/27/2007, -1/+9Tax the internet? What the hell...
- FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/27/2007, -1/+7Of course, Bush would never tax and spend. Spend and spend however...
- monospaced, on 10/26/2007, -0/+6Exactly, but now they want to put some sort of federal internet tax (like the array of onces related to your phone line) on top of it.
- slayernine, on 10/27/2007, -0/+6I wonder how an Internet tax in the United States would affect people in other countries like Canada?
- insomniac8400, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6But all the extra money is going to pay for crack head poor people to pop out kids. It will lead to an increase in crime, so we will need more money for police offices, which means a huge tax increase. Which again will also be used to fund more welfare, and more trash people will spawn criminals and start the cycle over again. Raising taxes is dangerous.
- jeffchuck, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5How ***** dare anyone out there tax the internet after all it's been through?!
LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE RIGHT NOW!!! - mrASSMAN, on 10/27/2007, -0/+5I live in a fairly liberal state and we don't have any income tax. (Washington State)
- formerssgtusmc, on 10/26/2007, -0/+5good point...justification for their useless existence
- monkeybacon, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6Interesting, when it comes to taxes Diggers do not want the government involved, but when it comes to the issue of Net Neutrality many want the government to regulate the internet.
- Scheissen, on 10/27/2007, -4/+9Of course, because it isn't discriminatory (yes neoliberals, taxing someone based on their wealth is discrimination)
- UnstableMind, on 10/27/2007, -1/+6I for one....do not.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Because A) The US doesn't 'own' or control the internet for the entire world
and B) there are several states without sales tax- and those states that do have sales tax all have different levels. So who is to say what's fair for everyone? - randomperson123, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4It is absolutely essential that the internet remain cheap, since it is the future of humanity. Otherwise, soon enough, we'll start seeing other restrictions and charges, such as "To access this site, you must pay $0.99". Ugh. Wouldn't that be terrible... We can't even budge an inch, otherwise, they'll take the whole thing!
- sexybobo, on 10/27/2007, -0/+4Google pays taxes. What this is referring to is allowing the states to tax your internet connection.
- FloppyLlamaDigg, on 10/27/2007, -1/+5*foams at mouth*
If the Republicans would top spending wildly and we could have universal health care without a raise in taxes. - dalittle, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4Someone else pointed out it is an easy way to look like Congress is doing something. One of the few things everyone agrees on, but if they made it permanent they they could not have a nice dog and pony show that they "saved the internet".
- NightVortez, on 10/27/2007, -1/+4That would actually be about the total opposite of a liberal.
- CatalystGhost, on 10/27/2007, -2/+5Look up Reagonomics. Look where it left us. Then shut the ***** up. I would not be talking about who's drinking koolaid when you don't even provide something to back up your view.
- UnstableMind, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3I don't think sales tax on goods = pay taxes for accessing the internet.
- sorrytheusernam, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3You're wrong.
- gerbco, on 10/27/2007, -0/+3The Internet company selling the same thing is taxed the same way a retail store is when they file their quarterly tax forms. Stores don't pay the sales tax, you do! They just collect it for the state government. They don't have the authority to collect taxes from out of state buyers on goods they sell to them as it is prohibited by the Constitution.
- insomniac8400, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Who gets the tax money? The sellers state or the buyers state? Most would probably go with the buyers state, but then an internet business would have to deal with the huge overhead of filing taxes in all 50 states. It will kill the small upstart internet business. Although a state like california where a lot of internet stores are physically located is going to argue the sellers state should get the taxes. If you live in indiana would you want your sales tax to go to california? The only solution people have is for consumers to pay the internet sales taxes manually each year by filing the purchases on your tax forms. But that means when millions of people fail to file, the IRS is going to have to deal with that headache and then people could be charged with tax invasion. Making millions of americans criminals is stupid. Personally the way I see it the government should just exploit credit card companies and other services like paypal and force them to collect the sales taxes. The national credit card companies can cut checks to the individual states.
- SquigglyP, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2we'd all post on our blog about how pissed off we are. A few people might record themselves talking into their camera about how stupid they think the government is and post it on youtube so people can ignore it. A couple articles would get Dugg up to a few thousand diggs. After a few weeks no one would care anymore.
- lordmetroid, on 10/27/2007, -3/+5Hmm, eery feeling... By the very definition, Bush can't be doing something correct. Conclusion: we have to tax the internet, that has to be the correct decision!
Right? Right? Am I wrong? - MacEnvy, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2What do you mean "only"?
- SquigglyP, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Reaganomics was a result of the cold war. We basically used our economy as a weapon to break the USSR's economy. Our government knew that if they had no economy they wouldn't be able to outlast us in the cold war. As a result, the single greatest threat to America was disarmed (relatively speaking... they had their bite removed) without war. It wasn't the best thing to do economically but it was probably better than some of the worse-case-scenarios they were running at the time.
- danboarder, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Creating a fair playing field (i.e. net neutrality enforcement) is not the same as government levy of taxes.
- Meowbiusfox, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2I WILL riot if this ever comes to pass..
- cmcagle, on 10/27/2007, -1/+3Neither sales nor income taxes make any sense. A property tax might have some claim to legitimacy, since one of the (very few) legitimate purposes of government is to protect property rights. Likewise with a corporate tax, since governments enforce the contracts which create corporations. Your ability to buy and sell goods and services, including labor, is not directly contingent on an act of government.
Having said that, this moratorium isn't over a sales tax, since states cannot charge sales taxes for interstate commerce anyway. (Ever notice how infomercials, magazine ads, etc. will say something like "CA residents add $10 sales tax"? That's because those businesses must pay state sales tax on intrastate commerce, just like when you go to the store.) The moratorium was over taxing internet access, much like the feds now tax telephone and television services.
It's great that the moratorium was extended, now contact your Senators and tell them to support Senator Sununu's bill which would make the moratorium permanent! - SquigglyP, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2or they could stop throwing away so much money on retarded *****. Raising taxes is only going to keep poor people poor. Do you want them to get a leg up economically? How is a poor person supposed to save money if they have to sell blood to pay the bills?
Tell me you want to tax the rich people more so i can point out what a backwards, hypocritical idea that is. Do it. - randomperson123, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2Unfortunately, more taxes are NOT the solution to the problem. As much as I too would love socialized medicine, an internet tax shouldn't be the solution. The government needs to start managing its budgets better and stop acting like the "World Police".
- SquigglyP, on 10/28/2007, -1/+3the SOLUTION to that problem is to spend less, not force the population of your nation into utter bankruptcy in order to continue the unchecked spending of the government.
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -0/+2In other news, the devil is reporting that the earth's core is cooling.
- mynamis, on 10/26/2007, -0/+2Thank you, but why even should this be considered as an option. Tax the corporations for the internet not the people.
- SquigglyP, on 10/28/2007, -0/+2I agree with you, but i disagree with socialized medicine. I truly don't think that a socialized medical system - if properly implemented - would be that difficult to set up, but it WOULD require less wasteful spending. Taxes could still be decreased by removing useless departments and programs and killing all these idiotic little personal projects and all this so-called "research" funding that's going on right now. There are really two ways to look at Government's role, and i agree with Ron Paul for the most part, but i don't agree with his views on socialized medicine. The government IS there for the people, to serve the people and protect the citizens. If people here were able to walk into a clinic at any time with very little to no cost for things like check-ups and simple procedures, there would be far fewer major medical expenses out there. if people were able to get a checkup every couple of months, this would most likely lead to fewer heart-attacks, strokes, etc. People might not live longer, but they would surely be far more healthy overall than they are now - and the ongoing obesity problem is a huge growing risk in this country for this generation.
It may cost more in the beginning, but i think after a few years the medical costs all around will get lower as people get healthier and aren't afraid of going to the doctor. Even people here who have insurance don't like using it because it drives up the costs, or they only get a certain number of visits, etc. But on the other hand, it's entirely likely that a federal-level program like that is just doomed to failure like every other large-scale project they've cooked up. So something like this might be more plausible on a State-by-State basis, and the state ID's would make that sort of program much more realistically achievable, along with state-based taxes for the program. This option would allow the people int eh state to be much more influential to the program as well, so they can more easily alter the way it works if need be. So on that point i will agree with Paul.
I dislike taxes greatly, and honestly, even if it's cliche by now, i really think Ron Paul would be the ideal president right now. He'd do as much as possible to gut all of these programs and agencies, and even if it turns out that we DO need "Federal Program X", it would at least give us a chance to re-implement the idea in a more informed way, based on the previous incarnation. But to be honest, i think i'd like to Err on the side of my wallet and paycheck, and the trillions in debt we've been destroying our dollar with. -
Show 51 - 100 of 122 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is