Senators Hoping to Pass Permanent Ban on U.S. Internet Tax

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, what does this mean in terms of this argument?

"Passed in 1998, the Internet Tax Freedom Act prevents federal, state and local governments from receiving sales taxes through internet access. The bill, however, is scheduled to expire during November 2014."

When it expires, sales taxes will be available through internet access. Right?

As to this portion of the article:

""E-commerce is thriving largely because the Internet is free from burdensome tax restrictions. Unfortunately, tax collectors see it as a new revenue source, and they must be stopped," Ayotte added. "This legislation will provide certainty to the marketplace, helping the Internet continue to be a driving force for jobs and growth.""

This implies that the issue is one of sales taxes. Also, nearly everyone pays some sorts of access fees (taxes) for their ISP use (like the FCC fee).

Reading comprehension not a problem here. Grasping the entire picture/problem is a tricky thing. Regardless, there are potentially many unintended consequences with any changes in these laws.
 
Ok so my bad after doing a little more research that what the article just posts up (apparently the original post here wasn't very specific)....

According to Wikipedia the Tax Freedom Act...

"... bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet-only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes, and email taxes. The law also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce.

It does not exempt sales made on the Internet from taxation, as these may be taxed at the same state and local sales tax rate as non-Internet sales, just like mail order sales. The Act did not repeal any state sales or use tax."

If you describe it THIS way then I'm all for it and I retract my original comment since it doesn't apply at all to the discussion.
 


This is the correct description of the law. You have to keep in mind when reading Toms hardware "news" that they are not journalist. They take some one elses info and paraphrase it. Often very poorly or flat out incorrectly. And they are after hits. You always need to look at the source.
 
[citation][nom]dfusco[/nom]Oh sure ANOTHER tax break for the RICH. I hope the Democrat Senernators put a hefty tax on the internetwebs that increases 1000% a year just so those rich BASTARDS don't use the innernettubes more than me.[/citation]

Not even a good attempt at trolling, it's so obvious.
 
[citation][nom]hoofhearted[/nom]I guess the idea of government regulation is double-edged. The ideal version where government is for the good of the people to regulate the large companies from exuding their monopolistic power and stick it to the people with unreasonable and tricky pricing. Then there is what is happening currently that governments is mor influenced by lobbyist and the regulations they encat really help the companies more than the consumer, kind of like that "illegal to unlock" crap that was on her a few days ago.[/citation]

Easy, get corporate money out politics and make I mean lobbying, which is just bribing renamed, illegal.
 
[citation][nom]lindethier[/nom]Of course not, they would like to impose this tax to collect money for more important things, such as doing a $10,000,000 study to find out why people use the internet.[/citation]

They would like to take your money so they can decide how much of it to give back to you, and what your needs truly are, because you're incapable of doing it for yourself. That's how they feel important and good about themselves when they go to sleep at night, knowing you couldn't have made it through the day without them.
 
"We have enough taxes..."

You do realize that taxes haven't been been lower in the last 50 years than they are today, right?
 
[citation][nom]brainbone[/nom]"We have enough taxes..."You do realize that taxes haven't been been lower in the last 50 years than they are today, right?[/citation]
They don't care, they are all capitalists.
 
[citation][nom]unksol[/nom]This has nothing to do with sales tax. There is a strong push to do that and its already happening and legal. They won't stop that.[/citation]

Uh. Last I heard, there was a part of the US constitution that says only Congress can regulate interstate commerce, which is the reason why there was no sales tax on out-of-state purchases. But now that the way-left states like California and NY have blown through all their cash, they're basically saying, "Welp, we need a new source of money, so we'll just ignore that and do it anyway."

Things like the Amazon Tax are not supposed to be happening and are definitely not legal. In California it was basically kept out of the courts because it was negotiated with Amazon like a shakedown legal settlement - make the short-term cost slightly lower than the cost of a billion-dollar legal battle. Completely disgusting what these states are trying to do, and how they're going about it.
 


Let's ask those housewives up in Chicago about not wanting to get a "smart-meter" installed...you know those ones where if some government official thinks you are using "too much" electricity, they can remotely shut it off.

Is that the "no government involvement" you are talking about???

Maybe YOU should learn something about utilities before wanting something ELSE put under that type of Government control.
 
[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]"This implies that the issue is one of sales taxes. Also, nearly everyone pays some sorts of access fees (taxes) for their ISP use (like the FCC fee). [/citation]

No one pays FCC fee to use the internet. That's the whole point of the original Internet Tax Freedom Act. If you sign up with Comcast for Internet service access at $59.99/month, that's all you pay, $59.99. There are no FCC fees, state or local taxes added on top of that.
 
[citation][nom]raidenfox123[/nom]We have enough taxes without having to slap on an internet usage tax. I'm glad these Senators are starting this early and hopefully all will be taken care of before the current act has expired.[/citation]

sorry, but taxes in US is a laugh compared to EU(though we do get much more for our tax), still internet tax is one of most retarded things i can think of
 
a government big enough to give you everything you want also has to be able to tax everything you have, including the air you breath, this is the sum of tyranny
 
[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]Fox News drone.[/citation]

That's kind of hard considering I don't even have cable or satellite TV. The only TV I've watched is through Hulu, and I don't think they have anything from FoxNews.
 
[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]A utility HAS government regulation.And if you think "because" something is a utility that you are "only" paying for what you use....you REALLY need to look at your bills more closely!!!! For gas, electric, phone, water, sewer, etc you are paying for so much more CRAP that has nothing to do with the actual service.[/citation]
Like. LIKE. What is it about "similar" that you think it means "identical"?

Look at what I said again. What I want is a pay for what you use system. I'd rather have a broken down price for actual internet usage LIKE how it is done on my utilities rather than paying first for a speed package, and then again if I exceed an arbitrary XX GB/month. Then various other crap service fees external from my speed and bandwidth usage.

I'm NOT saying I want it government regulated. I said that twice already. Nor am I asking for something for nothing. I just can't fathom how people can view a system as good where I can get a $40/mo internet package, and still get charged $40 even if I don't use a Kilobyte of data that month. Pay for what you use, not pay for a random access package.
 
[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]We absolutely, positively do NOT want internet access to be treated like a "utility" - EVER. Because then the government GETS to regulate it - that's what we are trying to stop and never let happen.Think about it - would you want your usage metered because some politician who gets elected in the future has a personal opinion that YOU don't need to use the internet, you should go outside and play....????[/citation]

My power company is a public utility and while they encourage energy efficiency, the have never said anyone is using too much energy and they will be shutting them down.

We will probably need an internet tax to force high speed internet services into rural areas, just like telephone and electricity in the early part of the 20th century.
 
[citation][nom]teh_chem[/nom]Like. LIKE. What is it about "similar" that you think it means "identical"?Look at what I said again. What I want is a pay for what you use system. I'd rather have a broken down price for actual internet usage LIKE how it is done on my utilities rather than paying first for a speed package, and then again if I exceed an arbitrary XX GB/month. Then various other crap service fees external from my speed and bandwidth usage. I'm NOT saying I want it government regulated. I said that twice already. Nor am I asking for something for nothing. I just can't fathom how people can view a system as good where I can get a $40/mo internet package, and still get charged $40 even if I don't use a Kilobyte of data that month. Pay for what you use, not pay for a random access package.[/citation]

Pay for what you use is not necessarily as simple to do for wired internet connections as it is for other things. Given that there is not a single month where my family doesn't use our internet extensively, I'm perfectly happy with how it is as a pay for bandwidth package. If you're internet use is so little and erratic that a pay for bandwidth package is inconvenient for you, then perhaps you should look into a different service. It is fine the way it is for the vast majority of people.

There are some sorts of wireless internet connections that work the way you are asking and some of the higher bandwidth options (I've seen as high as 5Mb/s or so for dirt cheap options sold out of Walmarts and that'd usually be more than good enough for general internet usage). It's simply not always as easy to do for wired internet because the package methods let the companies have a much steadier income from their customers and most people dislike pay for how much bandwidth you use in a given time period internet connections.

What I don't get is how you are in a situation where normal internet connection payment methods are inconvenient. Also, at least for Comcast, there generally is no maximum amount of internet usage per month and when there was last I checked, it was something like 250GB per month- a huge number that few people would meet. It isn't like the 3G/4G mess that many wireless providers for phones, tablets, and equipped computers can deal with, at least it hasn't ever been for me.
 
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Pay for what you use is not necessarily as simple to do for wired internet connections as it is for other things. Given that there is not a single month where my family doesn't use our internet extensively, I'm perfectly happy with how it is as a pay for bandwidth package. If you're internet use is so little and erratic that a pay for bandwidth package is inconvenient for you, then perhaps you should look into a different service. It is fine the way it is for the vast majority of people.There are some sorts of wireless internet connections that work the way you are asking and some of the higher bandwidth options (I've seen as high as 5Mb/s or so for dirt cheap options sold out of Walmarts and that'd usually be more than good enough for general internet usage). It's simply not always as easy to do for wired internet because the package methods let the companies have a much steadier income from their customers and most people dislike pay for how much bandwidth you use in a given time period internet connections.What I don't get is how you are in a situation where normal internet connection payment methods are inconvenient. Also, at least for Comcast, there generally is no maximum amount of internet usage per month and when there was last I checked, it was something like 250GB per month- a huge number that few people would meet. It isn't like the 3G/4G mess that many wireless providers for phones, tablets, and equipped computers can deal with, at least it hasn't ever been for me.[/citation]
Why is it not simple? Providers are already apparently measuring our usage in order to enforce caps. Why not bite the bullet and charge people for what they use and not what they don't use? If the reason for maintaining a poor double-tier pricing scheme is to bolster the pockets of providers with consistent revenue, why would you as a consumer be in favor of that? (most of whom, I'd like to note, have posted record profits year after year for a decade)

First you pay for a basic speed access package. Then you pay if you exceed a bandwidth amount that was adequate half a decade ago. I don't generally exceed 250GB/mo, but I have from time to time. Especially with remote/cloud backup of files being a more and more common thing, as well as HD video streaming becoming more and more common. One hour of HD streaming on netflix can consume up to 2.3GB for every HOUR of viewing. If you have a family or multi-user household and people are watching different things, it's easy to hit the arbitrary and magical 250GB limit in a month.

Access speeds go up. File sizes of virtually everything increase. Bandwidth caps don't change. And you get a hefty per-GB fee beyond your cap with many providers.

Not to mention the fact that many regions are still at the whim of a single cable provider that came in long ago and maintains universal provider coverage (monopoly) over that area. There is frequently no other option for residents in many regions.
 
Republicans, Democrats, etc., etc., ad nauseum... it's all the same. When are you ever going to wake up. Doesn't matter who you vote for, which party... what bills etc., the whole show is controlled by the SAME people, and after the day is out, they ALL do like sports stars, lawyers on both sides... and go meet at their favorite watering hole. The bill may be defeated or it will pass. In either case, they don't care because there's a handout everytime, to keep their watering holes fully lubricated, including narcotics, booze, prostitutes and other such pleasures for their express use, while the masses are CONTROLLED.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom