The Wall Street Journal reports that, On Nov. 1 — three days before Election Day — the popular Internet Tax Freedom Act signed into law in 1998 and renewed 3 times since is due to expire.
The Internet Tax Freedom Act prohibits state and local governments from imposing burdens online that don't exist offline. Multiple jurisdictions can't tax the same online transaction — a critical consumer protection in a country with more than 9,600 taxing authorities. The law also bans email taxes and new taxes on Internet access services.
But in a few months customers may begin receiving notices from their Internet providers that new taxes are on the way, due to the renewal of the policy being held hostage by lobbyists for giant retailers. Since the biggest retailers already collect sales taxes on purchases both online and off, they want to impose a greater tax burden on their smaller competitors.
Senators already voted last year to rewrite the rules of interstate commerce when they approved the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would force Web merchants to collect for all of America's taxing authorities. Even if one favors additional tax collections on e-commerce — which most Americans do not — why should this controversial idea be used to destroy a successful policy on which most Americans agree?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 12 2014, @06:46PM
n1, I made a mistake - the year on the summary should read "1998," not "1988." Additionally, I forgot to list the most shocking (and sensational!) aspect of the article:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jummama on Monday May 12 2014, @06:59PM
And I'm sure they'd be willing to pay when their email account is hijacked by spammers, right?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 12 2014, @07:19PM
Such laws are unlikely to apply to the ruling class.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Monday May 12 2014, @07:03PM
IIRC Al Capone was done in by taxes and not the expensive war waged upon him by the Feds.
If they can't pass SOPA type laws to force websites into revealing private information about their user's activities on demand, they will do it through taxation.
Taxation now allows an incredible violation of our privacy by giving the government access to our transaction details. While they say it's just to make sure taxes are paid, it cannot be ignored how much of a tool it is to the intelligence community.
If various municipalities are vying to assess taxation, which can easily lead to double and triple dipping, it opens the door for them to be able to force corporations to disclose all kinds of server traffic and data to verify compliance.
Email alone could require all sorts of verifications. Receiver must pay taxes in both CO (them) and TX (host) and CO (CDN network). With that many different greedy hands they could pass all sorts of regulations that allow auditing capabilities.
Any time taxes are mentioned, I immediately think of compliance and just what that implies in terms of an information war.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Sir Garlon on Monday May 12 2014, @07:39PM
The way I heard it was that the Feds' expensive war on Capone ended when the Feds decided to bring charges. They chose tax evasion because the law had enough teeth to lock him away for sufficiently long, but the government's case did not rely on witnesses who could be intimidated or murdered. I think it was a clever hack to overcome Capone's usual means of forestalling prosecution.
To your main point, you are totally right that tax records can and will be re-purposed to anything the government wants. In theory it should be possible to make tax records private, but that would require regulators, legislators, and Federal judges to respect the idea of privacy. They don't.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 1, Troll) by frojack on Monday May 12 2014, @07:51PM
Instead we forcibly give medical records to the IRS now. Such progress!.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 12 2014, @08:32PM
Does this mean together with TWC+Comcast merger, H1B bottom race, spy mandates, net bias by FCC and overpriced college that other countries are way more lucrative quite soon?
If so which countries offer the best opportunities?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 12 2014, @08:45PM
Does this mean together with TWC+Comcast merger, H1B bottom race, spy mandates, net bias by FCC and overpriced college that other countries are way more lucrative quite soon?
Yes. In fact, other countries have probably been a much better deal for the average citizen for at least 1 or 2 decades now.
If so which countries offer the best opportunities?
That probably depends on what you're looking for, and what kind of skills and savings you have.
(Score: 1) by cyrano on Tuesday May 13 2014, @12:30AM
Norway. No doubt.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]
(Score: 2) by AnythingGoes on Tuesday May 13 2014, @02:01AM
Depends on which factor is your highest priority:
1. Clean and Green Environment: New Zealand
2. Safety from street crime: Singapore
3. Lots of free time with few people: Norway/Finland/Sweden
4. Political Freedom: Japan
5. High Pay: Dubai
6. Good French food: France/Quebec (where else)
7. Cheap and decent medical care: Canada
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 13 2014, @03:50AM
Money is always nice but Dubai seems to have an inclination to jail and decapitate people that likes to have an sex life or expressing unsanctioned views. Guess at least that candidate goes away. Guess electronics tinkering goes away too.
The real optimization is done by comparing factors and using multi variable optimization. Not an n-way-ditchomy ;-)
So let's say Dubai goes into the trashcan. What country is then the most high paying? etc. etc. Add decent medical care, new optimization etc. etc.
Countries that doesn't score anywhere in such comparision may suffer in the long term. :-v
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13 2014, @04:57AM
I'm not sure Dubai decapitates anybody. It looks like capital punishment does exist, but the only legal method of execution is firing squad, so I definitely think you are confusing Dubai with somewhere else. Saudi Arabia is somewhere I wouldn't be comfortable living, for example. From what I understand they still do public beheadings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in _the_United_Arab_Emirates [wikipedia.org]