from the never-met-a-tax-they-couldn't-hike dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Congress has voted to make permanent a federal law that prevents states or localities from taxing Internet access.
[...]
There's long been general agreement in Congress that taxing access to the Internet is a bad idea and shouldn't be allowed. But permanent consideration of the tax ban was held up by some lawmakers, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who wanted it to be passed together with the Marketplace Fairness Act, or MFA.
The MFA mandates that Americans must pay sales tax on all online purchases. It, too, has garnered majorities on both sides of the aisle, and a version was passed by the Senate in 2013—yet, it still hasn't become law. Durbin reportedly dropped his opposition to the access tax once Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised a vote on a new MFA later this year.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/congress-passes-permanent-ban-on-internet-access-taxes/
(Score: 2, Insightful) by meustrus on Friday February 12 2016, @03:08PM
It's funny how much Republicans have done to forward this bill considering that most of the states that currently impose an internet access tax are Republican. But then state/federal politics is always a bit confrontational, and the feds have never really had a problem with grabbing power even when it's someone like Paul Ryan.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday February 12 2016, @04:29PM
That's because Democrats don't want to pay any more than they already do to see women they like being bred by Black bulls.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:53PM
I'd pay more to see Chelsea Clinton in a DFWKnight production.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @03:41PM
Congress Passes Permanent Ban on Internet Access Taxes
I think you mean: "Congress Axes Access Taxes"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday February 12 2016, @03:48PM
An x% tax would be a drop in the bucket when considering the already poor speeds per dollar compared to other countries.
The bigger news is that the Marketplace Fairness Act is still not law.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @06:24PM
Thats because nobody in congress wants markets that resemble anything near free or fair. How could they help funnel money to their friends if the markets were actually free or fair?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday February 12 2016, @10:14PM
RTFA:
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:34AM
Hmm, so I'm assuming the MFA would make us pay our local sales tax, whatever that might be? Sales tax, notoriously, varies by city, county, and state. Online vendors would, presumably, have to cut checks to each jurisdiction in which the tax was levied. Such a requirement could be burdensome. I suppose the vendor could ask its customers to tell it the tax rate, but that's not much different than the system we have now, where customers are on their honor to keep track of their online purchases and pay the tax directly to the taxing agencies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @11:24PM
In algebra, x often represents an unknown number of any magnitude, not necessarily a small amount as you seem to be saying.
Also, let's keep in mind Leopold's Law of Exaction: tax rates increase more often than they decrease.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday February 12 2016, @04:26PM
The thing about this is that one of the major parties in the United States has decided that as a matter of policy they will not increase or create any tax under any circumstances. And indeed, they will seek to cut taxes whenever possible. The fact that this could very well lead to a situation in which government at all levels cannot do anything at all, including basic law enforcement, doesn't bother them in the least.
The only thing that would show these folks how bad an idea this is would be to call their bluff. Actually allow, say, the citizens of Mississippi to vote to pay no federal taxes in exchange for receiving no federal funding. My guess is that if they voted "yes" to that, they might be able to last a few months, and then they might start thinking that federal taxes weren't such a bad thing.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @04:44PM
Govt stops men from marrying young girls and just assists women in dominating society and ruling over men.
Good if it's not funded.
Better to starve to death than live under feminism, unless you're a woman.
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.
>Also: see: Deuteronomy chapter 22 verses 28-29, hebrew allows men to rape girl children and keep them: thus man + girl is obviously fine. Feminists are commanded to be killed as anyone enticing others to follow another ruler/judge/god is to be killed as-per Deuteronomy. It is wonderful when this happens from time to time: celebrate)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @05:38PM
Thank $NODEITY I'm an atheist.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday February 12 2016, @06:12PM
The fact that this could very well lead to a situation in which government at all levels cannot do anything at all, including basic law enforcement, doesn't bother them in the least.
Didn't you know? Government can't do anything right!…
Eep.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 12 2016, @09:17PM
Gotta love the spittle-dripping theocrats, eh? "Government can't do anything right! Therefore you should elect me to be the head of it!"
By the transitive property, this of course says said foaming-at-the-mouth candidate ALSO can't do anything right :) Buuuuut if they had that kind of self-awareness they wouldn't be Dominionists.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @06:30PM
As kurenai pointed out, that's their platform, that government can't do anything right. Naturally they're going to do everything they can to prove that "fact" by sabotaging and undermining government at every opportunity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Friday February 12 2016, @07:45PM
That is because the Republican party in the past decade has gotten a huge infusion of Randians, and frankly the Randians are fucking SCARY man. A perfect example of how thick the party has gotten with Randians is the cheers of "let 'em die!" during the Ron Paul speech a few years back. For those that didn't see it Ron Paul asked the audience what should happen to a 22 year old without insurance who gets into a car accident, to a Randian if you are not rich enough to pay for treatment? Doctors should leave your bleeding body on the side of the road, lest they have to actually pay taxes to save that person.
Part of me really wants them to take over, simply because all those little Andrew Ryan wannabes dream of a modern version of the middle ages where they would be "kings of the kingdom" while I have zero doubt what these rich fat clowns would find out that in a true survival of the fittest situation? They aren't fit and their money wouldn't buy them shit when their employees had nothing to keep them from just shanking their overfed asses and taking it.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday February 12 2016, @07:59PM
Actually, Ron Paul didn't ask the question. The debate moderator did, 1 guy said "Let 'em die", and Ron Paul didn't deny it. Not saying Ron Paul isn't an Ayn Rand fanatic - who do you think Rand Paul was named after?
The good news is that the most powerful Ayn Rand acolyte ever (former Fed chair Alan Greenspan) is no longer in government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 13 2016, @10:51PM
Greenspan was chair of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1974 to 1977, and chair of the National Commission on Social Security Reform from 1981 to 1983. I hadn't known he'd held government posts.
sources:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2005-10-26-greenspan-cea_x.htm [usatoday.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/06/style/alan-greenspan-andrea-mitchell.html [nytimes.com]
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/guides/findingaid/U.S.%20Council%20of%20Economic%20Advisers%20-%20Records.htm [fordlibrarymuseum.gov]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:45PM
Of course not! The people who vote for this all live in gated communities, send their kids to private schools, have enough money in the bank that they don't have to worry overly much about health insurance, etc. When you don't have to live with the consequences of your policies then it won't bother you at all. I just wonder when it will begin to bother the neighbors.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 12 2016, @07:59PM
We've survived without a tax on Internet access; we'll be fine. If you're going to tax Internet access, first fix the problem with us barely having any ISP competition, which has led us to a situation where we pay outrageous amounts of money for service that is mediocre at best. No need to make people pay even more money.
(Score: 3, Informative) by SanityCheck on Friday February 12 2016, @09:26PM
I live in NJ where I have a 7% Sales tax on top of 5% income tax and of course a property tax that is about 2.3% of the ridiculously inflated house value a year. If they can't provide basic services with this highway robbery in place, they all need to be jailed starting with Christie.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday February 12 2016, @10:52PM
I have no problem with a sales tax for internet purchases, provided it is easy to charge and remit it. If it requires him to keep track of complex regulations in hundreds of states and foreign countries, which change frequently and have weird exceptions, then the tax will be a significant impediment to small vendors.
And it should be processed like a Value Added tax, like they already have in Europe and Canada and probably elsewhere. It could even be integrated with those internationally if anyone figures out how to streamline the process.
-- hendrik