digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

RIDICULOUS: Internet taxes could arrive by THIS autumn

news.com.com — The era of tax-free e-mail, Internet shopping and broadband connections could end this fall, if recent proposals in the U.S. Congress prove successful. Digg to oppose these anti-lower class and anti-economy proposals.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • jdh24, on 10/11/2007, -14/+250Just what we need: more taxes!
    Poor people use the internet to avoid sales tax and the cost of gas because shipping is frequently free, especially on big name sites like amazon.com. They use the internet to communicate and get information more cheaply than buying books, but now Congress wants to squish this free (apart from ISP charges) alternative to driving around town to talk to people, buy things, or sending letters by mail which use gas.
    • bufmike, on 10/11/2007, -16/+70You do know you have to pay the use tax on those purchases don't you? I know many don't pay the tax, but that is the way it works.
    • guitarh3ro, on 10/11/2007, -22/+294This is *****. I already pay for my internet, why should they make me pay taxes, too?
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -122/+218***** Democrats!
    • dt40, on 10/11/2007, -38/+95The sales tax aspect of this is NOT a new tax. It is enhancing enforcement of existing taxes.

      Resist sales taxes if you think sales taxes are a bad idea. However, uneven application and enforcement of sales taxes based on the purchase mechanism is absolutely silly. It disadvantages local businesses because they are less competitive. It disadvantages poor people who lack Internet access because they are forced to pay higher sales taxes to compensate for the people using Internet and catalog purchases to avoid sales taxes.

    • TenebrousX, on 10/11/2007, -3/+701"One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail."

      translated:
      One senator has no idea how the Internet or email works
    • cactus476, on 10/11/2007, -8/+84"This is *****. I already pay for my internet, why should they make me pay taxes, too?"

      They already do.
    • imjustabill, on 10/11/2007, -76/+18@guitarh3ro
      You pay for the gas, car and roads that you use when you go to the store to buy something that you have to pay tax on. Why should the internet be any different? When you buy something online, your state doesn't get taxes. Taxes that fund the road you drive on and the Medicare that gives your grandma the drugs she needs to live. Yes, taxes suck, but unless you want to live in magical free market land where you have to pay a toll for every different street your drive on and pay for your grandma's heart surgery out of pocket, you're gonna have to get used to 'em.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -13/+170"It disadvantages local businesses because they are less competitive. It disadvantages poor people who lack Internet access because they are forced to pay higher sales taxes to compensate for the people using Internet and catalog purchases to avoid sales taxes."

      So, by your logic we should have a google tax because google hurts local libraries. As a matter of fact, anything that is "more competitive" should be taxed to hell because it hurts existing "less competitive" businesses. We should all get taxed into oblivion because we use cars (which hurt the horse and buggy industry), we use microwaves (which hurt the wood-burning stove industry), and we use prescription drugs (which hurt the blood-letting industry).

      Also, somehow, an internet tax is GOOD for poor people . . . just like a tax on cars is good for people who can't afford a car? Are taxes on health care good for people who can't afford health care? The Internet is not a luxury item which tears up roads or pollutes lakes. It's something that should be available for use to anyone who wants it, not so expensive that it's cheaper to use archaic methods of gathering information and conducting commerce.

      When I buy something online I AVOID driving to a store to get it. Why should I pay taxes to local roads. The shipping method I use already includes local, state, and federal taxes.
    • sarazen, on 10/11/2007, -7/+37Ladies, ladies, first this has to PASS, and then it has to be SIGNED. Even with the Dems in charge of congress they do not make a definitive majority. They couldn't overturn a presidential veto without significant Repub support which would be unlikely, so ramrodding this thing through ain't going to be easy. So far Pelosi has not proved herself to be any Tom 'The Hammer' Delay so all this panic seems way premature. Remember, few senators or representatives wants to be on the hook for being the one to vote for new taxes come re-election time, not to mention Bush doesn't have much reason to sign a tax increase for a Democratic congress. Such is the beauty of divided government. Crackpot bills come up all the time, but it takes way more than being introduced to make them law.

      Now the moratorium on locally taxing connection to the Internet via, dsl, cable, etc. is a bit more dicey, still it is important to remember that this is the government we are talking about here, and if they do let the moratorium lapse, you can have a much greater voice with your local city council or state legislature if you don't like the idea of a connection tax.

      Still for all those worried, by all means, contact your Senator and Representative. They do like to talk to the people.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/11/2007, -21/+4my balls taxes could arrive by this autumn.
    • colincornaby, on 10/11/2007, -32/+18"So, by your logic we should have a google tax because google hurts local libraries"

      You don't get it. If we tax, we should tax fairly. If we tax local business, we should tax online business. Your comparison is plain stupid because we don't tax local libraries, so why the hell would we tax Google?
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -48/+12"One senator has no idea how the Internet or email works"

      Give you five guesses which one that is. Need a hint? Tubes.
    • dangermen, on 10/11/2007, -32/+58YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING TAXES ON ON-LINE PURCHASES. THEY'RE CALLED USE TAXES.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax

      Here is the deal:
      - If you don't pay them, your state can send you nasty grams in the mail saying "We see you have filed zero dollars in use taxes, please pay them." These notices are fairly common. IOW, the state tax departments are saying "Look, we aren't stupid, you're buying stuff on line, pay your tax". Now who here wants to keep records of the crap they buy JUST so you can pay use tax at the end of the year?
      - With a mandated sales tax, it means YOU don't have to keep records for paying end-of-year taxes. They just add it on to your purchase like any other state(if your state has a sales tax). I don't know about you but I'd much rather pay the friggin tax up front then worry about the stupid EOY paperwork.

      One thing to make life easier for consumers AND businesses: only allow one tax rate per state. example: Wisconsin has a moronic tax system where every county can charge differing rates something up to like 1/2% on top of whatever the state charges. Some counties are 5%, some are 5.5%, or like 5.25%. So to make it easier on on-line retailers, just legislate single tax rates per state for those that have a sales tax. End this moronic madness now.
    • sarazen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+70"Give you five guesses which one that is. Need a hint? Tubes."

      If you are suggesting Ted Stevens from Alaska who called the Internet a series of tubes, you would seem snarky and clever to the uninformed and be 100% wrong.

      Uncle Teddy might not quite grasp how the Internet works, but is dead set against taxing it, as the article states. Here, I'll quote it for ya, 'Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said Wednesday that he'd like "to see an impregnable ban on taxes on the Internet."' You did read the article didn't you?
    • Pseudorious, on 10/11/2007, -3/+17@sarazen

      You beat me to it, but let's see how many diggs noahhoward gets from other diggers who don't read the articles.
    • kikibun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19It would be trivial to get around email taxes: send your email from a web portal located in another country.
    • zediker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+25Well, even if they do tax e-mail, I predict a new standard of communication will develop over the internet, and it will not be called e-mail. Then all we have to do is wait a few years for them to tax that service, then create a new one again, yet slightly different, and then start the cycle all over again. Remember, you can only tax what you specify you can tax. Change what you are using, and it cannot be taxed. Voila, problem solved.
    • NoStoppingUs, on 10/11/2007, -28/+20wow. you guys didnt see this coming when democrats were elected? man, you people are seriously naive when it comes to the left, in every single way. i ***** love it.

      yes yes, VOTE DEMOCRAT!!!...........
    • gamebittk, on 10/11/2007, -5/+16They just suck at the internet.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -5/+33@imjustabill

      "You pay for the gas, car and roads that you use when you go to the store to buy something that you have to pay tax on. Why should the internet be any different?"

      If they would be using the monies collected to improve upload/download speeds then maybe, and that's a BIG maybe. But since the government doesn't provide DSL connections, we're already paying taxes on our phone lines. And I believe that we've been paying that to finance the Spanish American war, which I believe has been over for about 100 years.

      What exactly are the states going to use this money for anyway? Gas taxes go to road repair. Perhaps if they were going to institute a nationwide fiber optic phone system that we could use for our internet people wouldn't be complaining as much.

      At this point it's just a money grab, nothing more.
    • Smeed, on 10/11/2007, -2/+44***** email tax. They will never be able to enforce that.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22@nixon
      Welcome to Communism, the perfect egalitarian society, where no one hurts anyone else by being more competitive.

      @pop
      What else is the gov?
    • elnerdo, on 10/11/2007, -31/+7Ron Paul is an imbecile!
    • Fafnir43, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10nostoppingus: Question - which is more scummy? Raising taxes unnecessarily and evilly, or destroying each and every thing that made America great? (Freedom of speech, habeas corpus, absence of torture, protection from search and seizure without judicial oversight - you know, all that good stuff.)

      I'm not American, but frankly if I were I'd be backing Democrats to the hilt just for damage control purposes. Unless (maybe) Ron Paul made it through the primaries by some miracle.
    • Cloud7654, on 10/11/2007, -5/+45Eh, who cares. I already beat the internet and the final boss is a let down anyways.
    • Drizzit, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Honestly get rid of all this income, property, and sales taxes and implement a fair VAT style system. If everyone had to pay 10% on all their purchases no matter what it's a fair tax. It scales even for the rich who would feel the same amount of pain that everyone else would.

      All these complicate tax laws just justify paying a bunch of people we do not need to be paying to sit there and fudge up the system. No more tax lobbyists and maybe our congress can worry about something else other than balancing the books with some weird tax law here and there.
    • MarkusBlair, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18"Fudging Democrats!"

      U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.

      I believe Enzi is an R not a D.
    • imjustabill, on 10/11/2007, -13/+3@popcorndave

      I think you're misinterpreting me. Lets say you wanted a CD. If you wanted to buy one at the store, you have to drive yourself (or take the bus), which costs you money (unless you walk). If you want to buy one on the internet, you have to have an internet connection, which costs money. When you buy the cd from the store, you have to pay sales tax. When you buy it online, you don't have to pay sales tax.

      The taxes would go to the state, just like a normal sales tax. And if you're a good upstanding citizen, you're already paying it in the form of Use Taxes, so it shouldn't be a big deal for you anyways.
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -10/+15moronic diggers... -_- republicans would raise these kinds of taxes too... it's not just the democrates...

      Go Libertarian Part!

      I think as members of the internet community, we as diggers, and the rest of the internet, need to do our best to find ways around these kinds of taxes.

      If they think they can tax email, and other traffic... they have another thing coming!
    • NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I think we Really need to watch out about this issue, not because of this "tax on the internet" no, because that is a real hoax...
      Instead, watch out for the other crap the government will try to pull while using internet tax as a cover.
    • pretendperson, on 10/11/2007, -10/+5@nixonrichard

      everyone can tell your opinions are valid and well thought out simply by considering the success and integrity of your namesake.

      please explain how 'State and local governments' and 'the Governers Association' equate to 'everthang is the dummiecrats fallt!!'

      *****.
    • noahhoward, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2@sarazen and Pseudorious ... way to over analyze a cheap joke.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@imjustabill

      I understood what you were saying, but what about a state like Oregon that doesn't have a sales tax? It seems like the enterprising Oregonian is going to open up a drop ship depot where you can buy all your items online, have them sent there and avoid paying any sales tax.

      I still maintain the states are bitching about a pittance. They'd be better served looking at where they're wasting money than constantly begging for more.
    • nirav72, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22@nixonrichard "***** Democrats"

      While I'm not a democrat, I have to comment against your ignorance.

      This bill was introduced by a Republican ..you *****. Read the article!!

    • hmugabe, on 10/11/2007, -6/+11I'm surprised by the number of people cursing Democrats. This bill was proposed by a Wyoming _Republican_. Then again the Fox News watcher probably has trouble with reading comprehension.
    • uberkling, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9"One senator has no idea how the Internet or email works"

      Tubular.
    • shreky, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2You asked for Democrats to be in power and this is the crap you get. You can't say you weren't warned!
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1popcorndave...so, taxes should only be used to improve the area that they are collected from? Internet taxes should only be used to improve the internet? You do realize that sales taxes re not used to improve BUSINESSES, don't you?
    • CanceledCzech, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4@noahhoward

      RTFA

      Am I the only one who did a double take when they read that Ted Stevens was against the tax? I even had to look up "impregnable" just to make sure that I somehow hadn't gotten horribly confused or struck down with teenage Alzheimer's by thinking that it meant "invulnerable."
    • tamrix, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3LoL America has done it again.

      Well done America!
    • cptn_cardboard, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11***** this *****.
      Internet: were seceding from all governments, especially America.
    • seanof, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1A lot of this is an untended consequence of anti tax laws. When local governments can't raise taxes with traditional ways then start looking for back doors.
    • newAccount, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1the government should tax by the packet, as anyone downloading huge files are probably downloading warez or porn anyways. If the person was downloading a linux cd, we could tax it to where it cost about $5 because thats about how much I see windows 95 cds on sale for.
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Funny thing is... who gets the tax? Does my state get the tax because I purchased it here (technically I didn't but go with me on this one)... or does the state the item originated in get the tax? Is it subject to my local sales tax rate (because it's not as high as a larger city where I live).. or is there a "state minimum"?

      This is nothing more than a land grab by the states, seeing that people can purchase online more than not. Catalog sales for many years (and I might add still are) not taxable sales wise if you aren't in the same state as the merchant. Taxes are collected on me if the merchant has a presence in my state... at the local rate of my city of residence.

      So why is this not working? Because they want _more_... now that the Dems are in power... more means "squeeze those rich bastards who have computers..." rather than figuring out a way to get revenue correctly, equitably, and consistently.

      Taxes are crap... they tax everything, and they still want more. We went to war with a country over taxes... I'm just saying...

    • Huwawa, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8@nixonrichard:

      Sen. Michael Enzi(who seems to be the one pushing these taxes) is a Republican. Get your ***** straight.
    • w3bsmith, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5@dt40:

      The internet is a liberator, not the reverse. Poor people and small businesses have more advantages than richer people and bigger companies when using the internet.

      The fact is, taxes will get raised higher and higher regardless. They could rise until the people revolt against it. The government is careful to keep it just under that level. The faster we can push it above that level, the faster people will flee from paying it, the sooner more people will be free.

      Freedom is the goal.

      And to the person pushing that a vote for Ron Paul would stop this bill, you're wrong. The Congress will push this through if it really wants to. Ron Paul is great, and I support him, but more than likely this will go in before he has a say if at all.
    • HarrisonBergero, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9It is flatly AMAZING all of the 12 year olds who see this and shout "fraking democrats" - The leader of the effort to tax internet access and give greater power to states and localities to tax your purchases is a Republican, Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The leader of the effort to stop this, in fact the AUTHOR of the original bill to prohibit all discriminatory internet taxation, and the author of the current bill, was and is a fairly liberal Democrat, Ron Wyden of Oregon. Issues are rarely as black and white as little minds see them - here's hoping that some education can improve the discourse. http://www.standtallforamerica.com/
    • sputnikv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7what happens with spam then? will we be taxed for spam?
    • skyshock21, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6What about people that run their own mail servers? How is that to be enforced???
    • Grivako, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3God I hate talk about taxes, I have no idea what a Use tax is or why I should pay it or even if I was supposed to pay one sometime. I think the IRS would probably want to kill me for not knowing all their little rules and regs. I need to find an accountant.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@hdtvlust

      Of course I do. If sales taxes went to businesses we'd have a lot more productive businesses wouldn't we?

      But if I can save the tax on something I want I'm going to do it. And if it means I buy something in a state without sales tax while I'm there, how much am I really hurting my city/state? And to follow that further, since I live in California and there are different sales taxes by county, by your argument I'm hurting my county if I buy out of county. Should I be paying the difference in sales tax there? And if I'm in a county with a higher tax than my county, should I get a refund?

      Besides, I said IF an internet tax was collected, then it should go TO the structure of the internet. Regardless of what other taxes go to.
    • americanjerm, on 10/11/2007, -9/+1We need more taxes to potect us from the terrorsts!
      Just kidding.
      9/11 was an inside job
      Vote for ROn Paul
      Down with the establishment!!

      TAKE AMERICA BACK!!
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8@the_overly-sensitive_who_were_offended_by_the_f-ing_democrats_comment

      If you are the party in power, you take responsibility if this passes. The public didn't elect a democratic Congress just so they could pass any and all legislation proposed by Republicans. I don't care if it was proposed by a left-handed orangutan . . . it takes a majority vote to pass a law and democrats control the majority. If a crap law makes it to the President's desk, I will blame Democrats as long as they are the party in power.

      Sorry if I offended any left-handed orangutans.
    • deadowl, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yea, this wouldn't be possible to enforce for international transfers. It would also potentially spark a migration to New Hampshire for a lot of people and internet businesses (holy *****, I could get a job like 1000x more easily).

      Oh, and also, I hope everyone's realizing that they can't have a party affiliation in which they'll agree with their party all the time.

      YO!!! Look @ George Washington's Farewell Letter.
    • M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@nixonrichard

      I thought it was a joke. Politicians take no responsibility and like to turn ***** around and blame the other party. So I just thought you were joking, but what you said also applies. (unless if was ALL the Reps and just enough Dems to tip the scales, then it wouldn't be an all Dem thing. But who's counting.)

      And the little joke that Nixon was a Rep too. It works on so many levels.
    • Osjpr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2This is bs
    • bobbknight, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2This is precisely the reason the democrats should not be in charge, taxes, it's your money!
      So lets tax the internet until it dies, then we can blame it on the people.
      http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/24/1516253&from=rss
      The less you give the government the better it is and the better you are.
    • DaveXensen, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Here's an idea that's a bigger goldmine than taxing the Internet:
      Legalize marijuana, tax the hell out of it, the public is happy because a harmless drug is legal and the government is happy because they're reaping the rewards of a taxed product even costlier than tobacco.

      EVERYONE WINS
    • mekongcola, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2REMEBER THE BOSTON TEA PARTY!
    • rderveloy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Vote for Ron Paul and we will NOT have Internet taxes."

      And loose birthright citizenship:
      http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-Border_fx.html

      "5. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong."

      Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what Ron Paul is doing, but this portion of his stance on immigration irks me. People quickly forget how often citizenship has been used throughout history to divide a population into a first and second class. I'm all for deporting illegal immigrants, but this is just going too far.
    • JMaelstrom, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You folks wanted the Dems to take control - and this is what happens. You worry more about Big Oil than the socialist Big Government that the Democrats love... You don't have to worry about anything, 'cause they'll take care of it for you...
    • optigon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@mekongcola:

      Yes, let me know how it pans out when you throw all your e-mails into the Boston Harbor. :P
    • meez, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2@imjustabill (#7002024) said: "When you buy something online, your state doesn't get taxes. Taxes that fund the road you drive on and the Medicare that gives your grandma the drugs she needs to live."

      Umm... Right... Tax is put on things appropiately, like you pay road tax for using the roads, you pay council tax for living in a house (in the UK anyway). The funds from these taxes go to benefit the roads and the community, yes, they are needed. However, the internet does not require maintenance by the government, the internet would not directly benefit from it being taxed. I should not have to be taxed for using the internet to pay for schooling and whatnot. Call me self-fish but the internet should stay free.
    • nalen33, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1I believe there was something last century that happened similar to what is being proposed...

      What was it...

      Oh that's right. Communism.

      Please vote these mental midgets, Republican and Democrat, out of congress.
    • votewritein, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2The official site promoting Net Neutrality is: http://www.savetheinternet.com

      If you haven't already signed the SaveTheInternet.com petition (now with over 1 million sigs), please do so!
    • rcook18, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Tax is what finances your city and state. If you don't want to pay sales tax on your internet purchases, fine -- you can pay more property taxes.
  • XxFinalexX, on 10/11/2007, -39/+17How much will it cost per Digg?
    I dont want to beat a dead horse BUT this is just one MORE reason we need to elect Paul.
    • nixonrichard, on 10/11/2007, -10/+51Actually, I think you DO want to beat a dead horse.
    • guitarh3ro, on 10/11/2007, -9/+7@imjustabill
      Why should the government make us pay tax for something that they clearly don't even know what it is? After all, to them the internet is just a "series of tubes". Besides, I already pay enough taxes. I personally think they're in the position to tax us for anything else right at the moment.
    • samadam, on 10/11/2007, -20/+9Wait...I want this to pass.

      See, here is the thing: I am a law abiding citizen. I pay my taxes. You know that box on your state tax return that asks you how much you spent online? You are supposed to fill that one in with something other than 0.

      So this bill would really just simplify my taxes. The only people it hurts are only businesses who have to compute taxes for all the states, but I am sure paypal is up to the job.

      To say no to this (because you don't want to pay) is essentially saying you lied on your taxes and are a criminal.

      And don't digg me down because you are mad, its all the truth.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11@sam
      Nope, I'll admit it. I don't think this should be a tax and I don't want this to be a tax, because the gov is completely abusing their powers with this (and other) taxes. Taxes on public things I suppose I can stomach but private transactions? BS. Hell, the ***** income tax is asinine if you think about it. Not necessarily illegal but still ridiculous and wrong.
    • rkzda, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2@samadam I'm pretty sure my state(CO) tax form didn't have that, I did use taxcut online and I never once saw it, and it wasn't on my dads who used turbotax...
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@samadam

      Paypal may or may not have anything to do with an online business. Some are big enough to do it on their own.

      And if it was such a huge problem, don't you think that the state versions of th IRS would be going after people left and right? Oops, you'd have to get the information from either the business in question or the delivery service. Probably not going to happen.

      Besides, by the logic you're providing, if you bought something on sale, you're a criminal since you didn't pay the sales tax on the original price.
  • bufmike, on 10/11/2007, -60/+9I personally would like to see a tax on email, about .001/email that goes out onto the internet. Just enough to cut the spam but not enough to really cost a normal person much.
    • meshman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+66Try collecting it.
    • DruSam, on 10/11/2007, -1/+77You think our government would actually do an effective job at cutting spam? These people don't even know how to correctly and ethically use the money we give them now. Leave the spam cutting to software engineers and entrepreneurs. Case in point Gmail already does an effective job of blocking most spam.
    • OsiVert, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Taxing email would be impossible. How would you tax it? Who would get taxed, the senders or receivers? The senders can spoof addresses and IP's, making it impossible to track them down. The receivers don't always want to get the email, and even so, you can just sign up for an email that's hosted in another country.
    • bobcatred, on 10/11/2007, -2/+12Regardless of the fact that it'd be near impossible to track and collect, $0.001 an email is still WAY cheaper than paper flyers, billboards, tv or radio commercials, print ads, or even ads on most prominant websites. And if they have to pay an email tax, Spammers will argue that they have the right to spam you because they're paying for it. That's not going to stop anything.
  • Drexus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31The internet is a medium of communication. So if they want to tax the internet, will they tax TV, Radio and cell phone communications? How about talking on the phone? Is VOIP going to get taxed? Where do they draw the line?
    • imjustabill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+56Have you not looked at your phone or cable bill lately? You're already getting taxed like crazy for them.
    • Drexus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+30Sorry, I live in Canada.
    • rejoined, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14One surefire way to cause an Internet revolt is an introduction of a bill by a wiseass senator which would tax watching internet porn.
    • imjustabill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Down here where milk doesn't come in bags, we get about 10 bucks tacked onto our phone bill each month in the form of all sorts of crazy taxes and fees. It sucks, though not as much as bagged milk :)
    • Arbus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Only weird families buy bagged milk. I've bought it before but it didn't feel right, so I didn't buy it again.
      In conclusion, sales taxes of any kind should be resisted. If businesses stopped collecting them the government would be unable to enforce their existence and they would go away. Everyone is a giant pussy, unfortunately, so we'll continue to be taxed on everything.
    • psykiv, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4@imjustabill: $10? We have the cheap $13/mo plan... Our bill including taxes? $33.87. We don't even have caller ID ffs!
      That's ridiculous.

      With that being said; let the local businesses burn in hell. The vast majority of them have no idea what customer service is. Calling any business ahead of time to see if they have a particular item in stock is a joke. Somewhere between them taking 10 minutes to answer the phone, deciphering their horrible English, and them saying "yes we have it" just to get you into the store, you get pissed. So you waste your gas and your time, drive to the store, only to find out they don't have it. So you go to another store. Rinse and repeat.

      Hell, the other day I went to a chain store to buy something. I saw it cheaper online on their website. When I told the sales rep, he told me to "then just buy it online". WTF? Is he too lazy to price match their own online price?

      A couple years ago, I would have said going to a local store as opposed to online was a good idea. Now the only thing I'd generally buy locally is groceries and stuff that is on a dirt cheap markdown.

      There were only two things that made it worthwhile to go to a local store: Instant Gratification and Customer Service. The customer service aspect is completely non-existent nowadays. I think the instant gratification aspect is on it's way out too.

      Good riddance if any local store goes out of business.

      /rant. go ahead, digg me down.
    • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4If you're Canadian you're already getting taxed to death with GST and other *****. It's actually worse up there than it is down here in the US. However, at least you guys get public healthcare and you don't have some asshat starting wars in the middle east every few years on behalf of Israel.
    • DMofDoom, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0I pay a tax for internet access from my local cable provider which is only feasible high speed supplier in my area. And tax for my cell pone service and it's use. I'm already paying a tax on goods bought over the internet. and i dont really car how i get my milk but i want to choose how i do.

      Maybe i would buy a bag of milk if I went on a picnic. (If I were Emperor of America I would make it power to make the tremble in awe of it's power. (okay guess that might sounds like it's asking for a flame but it's not. I'm just that cool though. I think the US and Ruskies should team up and crushingly intimidate the whole world with their might..... (ok wait no seriously, I'm dungeonmaster so it's you know..... )))

      Sorry about the above what I mean to say is "As Emperor of America I promise that every Citizen will be secure in his God-given liberty to keep and bear firearms withouth exclusion, to secure every highway and county road with federal troops, and give each man and woman the option to buy milk in a glass bottle, box of flakes, tin can, plastic jug. or even some kind of decorative reuseable carafe with tastefully designs meant to enhance the desire to stop and enjoy a refreshing cool and fortifying glass of milk in some minor way and to in fact still display missing children on all forms of milk distribution to try to return children to their homesand raise awareness to the problem.

      I will invite other nations to join the Unity of States, and grant statehood to additional territories. Why? Because I like people. I will in fact likely be ridiculously rich being that I would in fact be an Emperor, but at the end of my term and every politician's tem there would be second vote when someone left office on whether or not to punish them (imprisonment, imporverishment, honorable execution, dishonorable execution) as matters of public affair of state these would be broadcast live and repeated as necessary and available in all broadcast medium.
  • ryanspahn, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Well everything will go through the net(TV service, phone service, emergency services, a sample of your morning stool analysis to your doctor's computer to see if ur ok(digital toilet), etc...) in ten years or more, so it's going to have to be taxed. Now isnt a good time, but it's inevitable!
    • Kazrog, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That's thinking in the sense of the old economy....
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/11/2007, -3/+35Taxes on eBay income, sure. Sales tax on internet purchases, eh. But email taxes? WTF?
    • catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10Ebay income is already taxed. It's called income tax.
    • ryanissuper, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Ebay income is already taxed. It's called income tax."
      Ebay income is taxed much in the same way that internet sales are taxed. Ebay does not collect social security numbers, and they do not rebort sellers income to the IRS, so it is totally up to the seller to report this income. How many actually do is anyones guess.
  • desistere, on 10/11/2007, -4/+10Two things in life are certain... (insert humor below)
    • stoops, on 10/11/2007, -12/+101. The Internet is made up of a series of tubes
      2. The Pirate Bay is an example of the metaphorical "dump truck" clogging those tubes thus slowing down all of the senators e-mails

      There are plenty other "things" that I missed and am hoping others will contribute to this thread.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3***** and taxes.
    • Archon810, on 10/11/2007, -0/+101. Taxes.
      2. People trying to invent new taxes and enforce old ridiculous ones.
    • popfrogs, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I remember having a discussion with my father a few years ago, who was in town in OKC. Oklahoma City started a new tax, a penny per dollar on top of the sales tax, and called it the MAPS tax. It was designed to siphon money into downtown improvement projects and passed easily through state legislatures. It was also supposed to be imposed for a short period of time, until the improvements had been completed.

      I told him the details of the MAPS plan and he laughed. He said, "my dad told me a fact about taxes when I was your age. No tax ever implemented has ever been repealed. Not taxes with specific life spans or anything. To this day I have yet to see that proven wrong."

      And you know, his father was right. When a municipality/state/gov't starts getting a new income stream, something funny happens. It gets addicted to the extra money. They suddenly find lots of projects that are on hold or short on cash and redirect the tax monies to that after the time limit is up on the original tax.
    • DMofDoom, on 01/28/2008, -0/+0sing/ 1. The internet is for porn! /sing (insert video dubbed to gameplay lol)
      2. The inevitability of the escalation of class warfare.
  • PeppermintPig, on 10/11/2007, -3/+29They tax because they can, and they love to tax soft targets. They must believe that internet users are pushovers. If this tax goes through, it probably means we are. Keep an eye on those who are supporting this! This is a liberty issue which must be defended against!

    Broadband is costly enough in my area due to lack of competition. Does that mean the high price of broadband in my area will have a proportionately inflated tax? I'm voting Ron Paul so we don't have to deal with these ridiculous taxes. Why do they need MORE taxes???
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+16Why do they need more taxes?

      Because they spend money like a drunken horny sailor in on shore leave. Fiscal responsibility gets left at the door apparently.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Well, the government is controlled by the (big government) left and/or the perverted big government right, so it's not surprising there's no fiscal responsibility. Seems like only the libertarians care for fiscal responsibility now.
    • Renton, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Send each one of them goatse. That would make them fear us...
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Trouble is, we can't get CORPORATIONS to pay their fair share of taxes, yet they soak the people with more and more taxes, fees, and surcharges.

      Give me a break... if the tax system were equitable, I'd not complain. But since it's broken, screwed, and run by greedy scumbags... I'm complaining.

      IF they don't like it, let them try to repeal the 1st amendment. THEN see how far they get with their "taxes"....
  • Nidy1, on 10/11/2007, -13/+14Why shouldn't you have to pay tax on online purchases?
    • Nidy1, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Sorry for responding to myself, but I'm being dugg down without anyone telling me why they disagree with me. I would really like to hear why buying something online should be different than buying it offline.
    • mikestro, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Not sure, but maybe you are doing it from your home and not using state resources? How about this. Why should it be taxed in the first place? The whole concept of sales taxes "just because" needs to be questioned.
      Tea Party anyone?
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Exactly how many times should taxes be added to your purchase?

      Let's say you buy a book from an online retailer and you're not paying your local sales tax. The retailer is paying taxes on his income from the book. The packaging supplier and the printer of the book, in addition to the author are as well. The delivery service is paying taxes on the gas that they're using to bring you said book.

      Exactly what part of that is not bringing the taxes in to your community? Taxes are being paid at every step except for you. Since the book is being delivered, you've got both a road and a vehicle tax being paid.

      The local municipalities are just pissed because they're missing a cut of the pie. If government don't have the money to pay for something, then they need to look where they're spending the money. Perhaps they could start by cutting their own salaries and privileges.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Yeah. As far as taxes, I can understand the government putting a tax on public things, like the use of roads or police departments for example (even though those could probably be privatized). But why tax private transactions, such as when a consumer gives money to a company or when a company gives money to a worker? The answer because they can and because the government naturally wants money. That's not a good reason, though. Of course, as I said before, the state has a monopoly on power, ans so can do whatever they want. In a constitutional republic, we somewhat control the state, so we should be able to hold them accountable for this, right? We should elect people who cut expenses, shrink government (privatize some things), and cut unnecessary and contrary to the spirit of the constitution) taxes! That's why I support (guess who?) Ron Paul, because he's the only guy who'll do that. What do you guys think? If you know someone else who will do that, let me know.
    • Nidy1, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Thanks for responding intelligently. I agree that private transactions shouldn't be taxed, but feel that if they are going to be taxed, it should be consistent.
    • avoutthere, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3@nidy1
      "Why shouldn't you have to pay tax on online purchases?"

      A better question whenever somebody wants to take from you: by what right should they be allowed to do so? At a minimum they should be required to justify this with more than "because we need the money".
    • lendrick, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2It's probably not worth replying here about what good taxes are, considering the fact that most of the people modding here bury the crap out of anything that doesn't follow the Libertarian party line.

      Transportation systems, police and fire protection, a social safety net, maintaining a military to defend ourselves (not nearly to the extent of occupying foreign countries, of course, but we definitely need to at least maintain some semblance of a military at home), disaster preparedness, medical coverage for people who can't afford it, research, etc. You can debate all day about whether or not these things should be privatized, but in the end it's widely accepted that having some government involvement in these things can be beneficial. Some of these things aren't implemented correctly, but many of them are and the philosophy behind them is sound.
    • MechaFenris, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1ok nidy1... who gets the taxes? Your state or mine? How much? Who's required to set the minimum in places that allow local sales tax settings?

      Let's make it even more complicated.... for decades catalog sales had worked fine without sales taxes if the criteria for a "local" purchase wasn't there. Why isn't there anything like that with the Internet?

      Because they see $$$$ and they want a piece. Greedy bastards.
    • skyshock21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Why? Cause ***** 'EM! That's why!
  • TenebrousX, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2I propose $.01 for each load of stuff you dump on
  • tsoldrin, on 10/11/2007, -11/+4Well, it couldn't be more clear.. a vote for anyone but Ron Paul who is the only candidate who wants to keep the internet free, is a vote to pay-per-digg.
  • blored, on 10/11/2007, -11/+1Nooooooooo.
    • KitchenRaider, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2I think you mean: Noooooo!

      or was that sarcasm?
  • BlackStar77, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0This is a joke, right?
    • Pootle4rthur, on 10/11/2007, -4/+17well,
      as someone who lives in Europe, I'm finding it hilarious

      How exactly a tax on email would function over the international borders of the internet makes my tiny mind melt.
    • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9You find it hilarious? Don't you guys tax everything under the sun?
  • TheLoneWolf071, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Tax to cut spam is a bad idea... it just means that those who spam will find a hack or cheat to it and will get away with paying nothing... while Joe average like you and me will be stuck obeying the lay and paying though the nose to send our family pictures... it makes me sick.
    • huckmank, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If only there were a way to prosecute those who evade paying taxes...
  • metall1c1ne, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12That is the dumbest ***** I've ever heard!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Internet Tax? ....hey, Congress....go ***** yourself!
  • Nick22, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2Hmm..good thing I live in canada.
    • blamslamman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5no worries, in canada they get you when shipping.
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Your government is going to adapt the same legislation, I guarantee it.

      (men's warehouse)
  • blamslamman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2***** the feds!
  • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3FUUUUUUCK. What a terrible, terrible idea.
  • bbhill55, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4damn, i'm gonna have to start cutting out my porn.
  • brandonhines, on 10/11/2007, -0/+25"Digging" an article doesn't oppose anything. How about "write your senator" in the summary instead?
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20dude, i'm lazy and tired. and illiterate.

      (my mom wrote this comment for me)
    • smackywentz, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2As a matter of fact, writing your senator actually does less than digging an article. I'd rather not tell an intern what I think should be done only to have him delete it laughing.
  • ButterBuddha, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Sen. Michael Enzi = traitor
    • fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I get that you don't like the guy, but slinging that term around so easily just devalues it for use against real traitors. But then this is the internet, where complaining about grammar gets you called a Nazi. I shouldn't have even started typing this, sorry if I'm wasting anyone's time, sorry.
  • SpookyET, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6This is idiotic. It will hurt Internet shops and shoppers. Product Price + Tax + Shipping will most likely be > than brick and mortar price.
    • mwolfzorn, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5That's the point... Brick and Mortar stores have a lot of lobbyists and they want people to come to their stores and spending money in their districts and States. Taxing online stores is one way to reduce the advantages of online shopping, by leveling the playing field and keeping money and jobs local.
    • dt40, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Isn't it quite reasonable that all purchases incur the same tax, regardless of purchase mechanism?

      Internet stores still retain several advantages and will do just fine:
      - No need to maintain physical infrastructure for shoppers.
      - Often, better navigation systems.
      - Ability to locate themselves in places with inexpensive labor, property taxes, etc.
  • pos3000, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7How many tax payer are asking for this tax? Why in the hell do these ***** senators think they have a right to tax the hell out of the people that vote for them?
  • nonokiaboy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Internet taxes?

    http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j142/Amarana_Bloodfang/Funny%20Images/Fun_Cat_Jenga.jpg
  • statix, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16go ahead let them tax email.

    so 6.5% sales tax of $0.00 = comes out to....$0.00
  • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11FTA: "If that doesn't happen, other taxes may zoom upward instead, warned Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?" Enzi said. "I want to avoid that."

    What a load of unmitigated baloney. They passed the income tax amendment because they told people it was only going to apply to the rich, and only during of the war. Give them the right to tax anything, and they will tax it to the limit of rebellion. And once again, a Republican shows his true tax-and-spend colors. Don't buy their conservative rhetoric.
  • ChewyBass, on 10/11/2007, -2/+23Sen. Michael Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, at a Senate hearing on Wednesday. "Are we implicitly blessing a situation where states are forced to raise other taxes, such as income or property taxes, to offset the growing loss of sales tax revenue?"

    Sir, let me set one thing clear for you. You are a government entity and not a business, you are not in this to make revenue. One of governments function is to make and enforce laws. When did this become a business model for ever increasing "revenues" so you can turn around and tell the people "look at how much money I brought you". ***** you. You should be kissing our ass and telling us thanks for sending in our taxes.

    Yes, I am a republican.
  • abc789987, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9How did this take 11 days to get on Digg? Is this for real?
    • SoundJudgment, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Yeah, it can be for real this time. But of course... nothing will be done. No one will really 'stop' it. All they will do is complain even louder when it is fully enacted.

      The frog sits placidly inside the pot of water, as the temperature of the stove is raised one... more.. degree.
    • bhattsan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2@abc789987 (#7002713)
      its because people were only digging it, and not looking at the article, which affects how long it takes to hit front page
    • postaboy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1It puts the Democrats in a bad light, so of course it makes it harder to get to the front page even though this is an issue that both sides of the parties should find unreasonable and completely ridiculous.
  • gunslinger37, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3If they are so very intent on getting taxes from people for using the internet they should take the next step. Instead of having single companies selling internet access and the government then taking taxes from it perhaps the government should just take over the distribution of the internet. Perhaps a state that takes a tax on the internet should set up WiFi connections, make it a universal system like our health care system in Canada.

    If they just go straight through and tax the internet, heads will roll.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1How is having a monopole on anything good again?
    • seanof, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"How is having a monopole on anything good again?"

      I think his point was that we already have a monopoly.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Monopole is some damn good champagne though. For a wine tasting, too expensive to actually buy a bottle.
  • jtscira, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6I don't mind paying taxes. I just don't like seeing my tax dollars wasted. If this "tax" would solve this country's problems I would be the first in line to vote yes on it.

    More money to our government is like just putting money into your garbage disposal.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Actually P.J. O'Rourke said it best: Giving government more money is like giving your 16 year old son a bottle of Jack Daniels and the keys to your Jaguar.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Government IS this country's problem.
  • rumbl3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Lets recreate the Boston tea party by throwing modems and computers into a river! Hoorah!
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7You can't. You'd probably be charged with dumping hazardous waste.

      If you really wanted to be symbolic, dump douche bags in to the Boston harbor.
  • DarkHornet, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Another prediction: I will switch to doing ALL my shopping out of state in (sales) tax-free New Hampshire.
  • xXShadowstormXx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What the hell.
  • meldroc, on 10/11/2007, -7/+8As much as I hate paying taxes, the .gov has to pay for things somehow. Though I'm getting tired of seeing our government spend money like a frat boy with his first credit card.

    Mark my words - that giant national debt will be paid for one way or another. Either cut spending and/or raise taxes now, or we'll see that backdoor tax known as inflation suck the value out of our money as the Federal Reserve prints more money to service the debt.

    Personally, I'd rather see our taxes raised the honest way - out in the open.

    But first, it would be nice if we could get our Congressional invertebrates to get our troops out of Iraq and save hundreds of billions of dollars that way. And put an end to the corporate welfare for such responsible corporate citizens as Halliburton and Exxon-Mobil.

    And I'll admit it. If we have to raise taxes, I'm an eat-the-rich kind of person. For someone with a salary in the six figures, a tax increase is a nuisance. For someone making $8.00/hr flipping burgers, that tax increase could mean no money to pay the electric bill or get the kids to a doctor. Close the loopholes, raise taxes for all the millionaires and billionaires, and see if we can get the deficit under control that way.

    If all of that fails, maybe I'll support taxes on the Internet, but not until then.
    • rumbl3r, on 10/11/2007, -11/+0fart
    • eksai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7only an idiot would think this is a good idea. Government should learn how to spend money correctly..but hey I guess this is what happens when you have a bunch of communications majors running the country. Thats why I'll vote for Ron Paul, at least he has the idea that you need to spend less money than what you bring in through revenue
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Yeah, because there are so many single income families working at McDonalds.
  • my10cent, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0Umm I have been paying taxes on my broadband connection since I got it in 2004, You already pay taxes on Ebay purchases or rather you are supposed to.
  • MMorris192, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I had enough, I'm moving to Canada!
    • robbh66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1don't let the door hit you on the way out.
  • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -7/+5Gee.........which party is in power in congress right now??
    The "there isn't a tax we don't like" party....the DEMOCRATS

    Yes, I know it will get dugg down, so what
    • Yez70, on 10/11/2007, -4/+6I suppose it's better than 'there isn't a deficit we don't like' Republicans.

      Remember that when Social Security isn't there when you retire, or it gets extended to 85 year old only eligibility.
    • Zarchon, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1I laugh watching those on the left try to explain why this is a good thing.

      dt40 says "It disadvantages local businesses because they are less competitive. It disadvantages poor people who lack Internet access because they are forced to pay higher sales taxes to compensate for the people using Internet and catalog purchases to avoid sales taxes"

      samadam says "See, here is the thing: I am a law abiding citizen. I pay my taxes. You know that box on your state tax return that asks you how much you spent online? You are supposed to fill that one in with something other than 0."

      nidy1 says "Why shouldn't you have to pay tax on online purchases? "

      And this is just another reason I vote Conservative. The left and the government think they have a right to tax anything for any reason. How about we stop taxing things and start geting rid of social programs that society doesn't want to pay for? After that we can discuss necessary taxes/
    • Ryosen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Actually, we went through this very same thing when the Republicans controlled Congress. Twice.
    • dt40, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2zarchon: I am actually very much on the right.

      Although I am not a fan of taxes or big government, I believe that we should have laws and policies that are consistently enforced. Random loopholes, like sales tax exemption on Internet and catalog purchases, make for bad policy and poor capitalistic solutions. An efficient free market needs intelligent rules and constraints, consistently applied.
  • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3The money that people save on internet deals (they must get them or they wouldn't shop online) will then be spent in local businesses.

    A tax is never a good idea, it cripples the economy every single time.
    • hdtvdust, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2One more time for the slow iwtter (you)...This is NOT A NEW TAX! Internet sales are ALREAY subject to taxes. They have always been.
    • YixilTesiphon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes, but nobody pays them.
    • Corrosionx, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you were an internet seller you'd have to send each state the money that you collected from taxes on each purchase from these states. It would be a paperwork nightmare and it would mean higher costs for the sellers. It doesn't matter if the tax is new or not, it's a burden, it's unnecessary and will hurt buyers and sellers and only benefit bureaucrats.
  • dharmabhum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1hardcore bullsh*t... damn the man!
  • Powlus, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1is this guy serious?
  • saprian, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This will be very interesting, if they are trying to tax email (short of the necessary software infrastructure not being available). Just imagine: then spamers might as well be guilty of tax-evasion. Now that would be a motivation for the government to go after them, wouldn't it?
  • jaypee68, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3I have Comcast, but I use a web based email provider. How in the world would they tax that? Especially if my provider probably doesn't have any type of mechanism in place to tally my emails and apply taxes to them?

    I'm sure they could cook something up eventually, but not by this fall.
  • jron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Who wants to stop this?

    H.R.743: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR00743:@@@P

    ##RonPaul @ freenode
    • yacoutamia, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1This bill is proposing permanently banning taxes on:
      `(1) Taxes on Internet access.
      `(2) Multiple or discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.'.
      So it's good..... right?
      You want it to pass..... not stop it.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Start enforcing sales tax, fine. But to add a tax to a dsl line, WTF?
  • jalexhall1989, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2How about this, you tax the internet. Free Medicare, Deal?

    PS couldn't you just use a Proxy? For e-mail that is.
  • kevin1987, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4They already get the benefit of not having the wear and tear on roads if we were to drive to the store. It cuts down on traffic, accidents, and saves the economy, and now they want to tax it as well? BS!
  • Raidenwolf, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Okay please reply to this.
    The idea of using tax on email as a means of spam control, seems to upset alot of people. I could see charging as litle as a quarter a month for your normal family (Lets say 2000 emails for a quarter), for real spammers this would be suicide but if they chose not to pay the IRS Collector would come after them. One of the bad issues would be what if your system was compromised and you are unintentionally sending spam?
    I honestly believe a seperate email system needs to be built now. For those that want to use a more secure email and don't mind leaving behind the rest. It would somehow require people to register just like we do now with verisign. Anyway if there was truly a tax that would stop spam I would gladly pay. Most individuals , and without a doubt most companies are having to pay for some form of spam control now as it is. Wether you pay a monthly fee for service or build a server to control spam or do nothing. we are all paying dearly for having to deal with spam.
    All I am asking are what other ideas are out there to control spam? I personally think it would be great if servers were built with a new protocol that got permision from the person that the email is to be delivered to first. And if you reject them that server will not even attempt any future sending emails from that one address to the other address.
    • PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Forget the spam part for just a moment. Do you know of any tax that the government has actually stopped collecting? Usually once they're started, they go up.

      For example, can you imagine the howls you would hear if everybody stopped smoking tomorrow? Smoking brings in a lot of revenue, especially here in California where there are extra tobacco taxes. Governments gets used to having piles of money to flush down a rat hole and they get worried when it's not coming in.
    • zealeus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Server-side software already has the capability to whitelist and blacklist senders. When receiving e-mail, there's server capability to "ask" the sender if that was legitimate e-mail before it's passed on to the recipient. Too bad each has its limitations, particularly the later.
    • Raidenwolf, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Thanks real good points

      @popcorndave
      I guess the argument that tax will not deter spammers since that would make the government more money not stopping spammers makes sense. And I guess after further thought how do we tax people spamming us from other countries? So yes I was wrong there is no way taxing can really help STOP spam.

      @zealous
      I already deployed a server just for spam filtering at work so it does not even hit our mail server at all. When you consider how small our company is and the fact that only .2 % of emails coming into our gateway is legit the amount of spam email we get just kills our servers (Not literally) . Also I know this has to be eating away at our bandwidth. As a matter of fact one of the test we ran proved that if we put our mail server off line for just 12 hours it takes legit emails 2 hours to get through once the service is brought back up. A lot of this has to do with just too damn much spam. The whole reason I even consdered the tax thing was to stop spam at the source, which I now see that taxation would just be a form of legalizing spam.

      Which brings me back to why not require evryone get verisigned and start a new mail protocol?
  • AgentBorrelli, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Yeah, maybe they should tax me on every cell phone call I make too. . .
  • Duncan3, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0If we raise taxes on everything to 50% _TODAY_ and get rid of every single loophole, it's still not enough to pay all the old people to not work (social security) and not die (medicare). This isn't even a drop in the ocean, and really doesn't matter.
  • epalla, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1@nixon
    "So, by your logic we should have a google tax because google hurts local libraries. As a matter of fact, anything that is "more competitive" should be taxed to hell because it hurts existing "less competitive" businesses. We should all get taxed into oblivion because we use cars (which hurt the horse and buggy industry), we use microwaves (which hurt the wood-burning stove industry), and we use prescription drugs (which hurt the blood-letting industry)."

    Don't be stupid. His point is that a difference in taxation (re: taxing sales from local businesses and not internet businesses) should NOT be a source of competitive advantage. He's absolutely right. That kind of difference doesn't encourage competition at all.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 220 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.