Options

Internet tax... a good idea?

Unknown
edited December 2003 in Science & Tech
[blockquote]Back in 1998 there was a moratorium placed on internet taxation. Simply put, lawmakers decided that they didn’t want to come to a decision on the whole issue of Internet taxation just yet. On November 1st 2003, the moratorium expired, leaving states open to begin taxing however they see fit.

However, only a few state legislatures are in session at the moment. This is good news, as lawmakers won't have much time to draft anything before the year is over. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden is co-sponsor of a bill that would have broadened the ban on Internet taxes. It was killed just before the senate ended this year’s session. The bad news is, congress won't be addressing this until they resume in 2004. This will give states additional time while congress drags its feet and senators change the language and drum up support for their potential cash cow. [/blockquote]Nope, no way, uh huh, yeah and this should be interesting. I can't see it ever happening? Can you?
[link=http://news.designtechnica.com/talkback29.html] Internet tax... a good idea? @ DesignTechnica[/link]

Comments

  • CammanCamman NEW! England Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    seems to me like it would be extremely difficult to implement, like, what are we talking about in terms of taxation? goods purchased over the internet? email? web content?
  • TemplarTemplar You first.
    edited December 2003
    Goods, email, Instant messages, chat, and possibly web access.
  • CammanCamman NEW! England Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    well I certainly hope this doesn't come into law, it would be a travesty and stifle much of the creativity that is made possible through the internet.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    They would most likely just implement it through your ISP so you just have to pay extra depending on your bandwidth usage (just noticed that that is in the article).

    Is this another US only thing? If so, can people say so please. I notice the senate and other things mentioned, but I don't know how far they can reach.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Depends on how the laws work, as you noted.

    It might be tacked on to your ISP bill as well in Europe, as a large quantity of backbones reside in the US.

    Who knows.

    I think it sucks.
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Wow, not only does Broadband cost more in the UK than anywhere else, but now it will be made more expensive up to the point no-one will be able to afford it, then they will bring in 128/64 and call it "Broadband" but it will end up costing the same as 512/256 BB currently costs.

    Yay for the Immigrant Kindgon, er, United Kingdom.
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    England, most of the EU, all of North America are getting royally screwed on broadband.

    Pipex, NTL, and one other provider that I can't remember in your neck of the woods refuse to even budge on broadband speed and/or prices. That just bites.

    Whilst the U.S. is better off on prices/speeds (We can get 3mbit/512kbit here for your 512/256 there)... We're still a sham compared to other developed nations like Sweden, and Japan. Canada's roughly the same as us.

    You guys have the capacity to go much higher than you can, because your telecom infrastructure is far newer.. But I think the BBC is going to be stubborn and resist the deployment of high-speed DOCSIS cable connections. BBC stubborn? Why I never...

    Here.. Our infrastructure is just old. It didn't get bombed flat half way into the century. But that doesn't excuse the utter lack of new development, or the whole "Let's make it slightly more expensive, increase their speeds...Then deliver ****ty service! :D" routine which seems so common.

    @Home, Cox, and Covad being fine disciples to this mindset.

    So both parts of the globe are in a quandry.. Just different ones.

    And it all turns up rotten.
  • ShortyShorty Manchester, UK Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Enverex and Thrax are spot on. It's all about maximum profit and not givin an inch.

    Just a quick note.. It's BT not BBC.

    BT = British Telecom
    BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation
  • EnverexEnverex Worcester, UK Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Shorty wrote:
    BT = British Telecom
    BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation

    That had me laughing, as I didn't think about it to start with.
    Just think, things may be different if Mercury were still around....
  • ThraxThrax 🐌 Austin, TX Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Yeah, I meant BT. Sorry.
  • DanGDanG I AM CANADIAN Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    I wouldn't mind a tax on email as long as the spammers pay it too. I'll gladly pay 1 cent per email that I send if it makes spam disappear.
  • ginipigginipig OH, NOES
    edited December 2003
    To quote Chris Rock:

    "You know whats F***ed up about Taxes? You don't even pay Taxes, they take taxes. You get the check, the money gone. That aint a payment, that's a jack"
  • pseudonympseudonym Michigan Icrontian
    edited December 2003
    Lets seeeeee, how can we intrude on the publics life today and make MORE MONEY!!!!
  • McBainMcBain San Clemente, CA New
    edited December 2003
    Bastards! You leave our cheap e-commerce alone!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.