They may start taxing the internet/email

[stubeeef]

Well don't know what happened there...I saw my post and then it wasn't there...here it is again..

Seems the government may need to find more money to support all its bad habits, since we all seem to be under taxed here is something that needs the attention of those wanting to keep emails and such tax free. Regardless of wether or not you want to blame the Republicans for their lack of stewardship, or the Dems on their eagerness to grow government, or both on their ineptness, this is not a tax that should happen, IMHO.

http://councilfor.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=CCAGW_getinv_Advocacy_internettaxban_IssuePage

[Schnebar]

They as in who?

The current government or certain candidates?

[IJ Reilly]

Are we supposed to understand the purpose of this thread?

[gauchogolfer]

Are we supposed to understand the purpose of this thread?

I think he'll finish his post once he raises enough money to pay for the rest of it.

Darn taxes.

[stubeeef]

sorry about the original post....fixed it, thanks.

[pseudobrit]

Are we supposed to understand the purpose of this thread?

The misleading headline is a good indication. Disinformation? Mock outrage?

[obeygiant]

Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Sununu (R-N.H.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) are pushing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to allow a vote on making the Internet tax ban permanent. The Senate needs to hear that Americans like you support a permanent ban!

Are there really people out there that want to tax the internet?
Please show your face so I can throw an egg at it. :P

[stubeeef]

The misleading headline is a good indication. Disinformation? Mock outrage?

The sky is blue.

[pseudobrit]

The House last week passed a four-year extension of the Internet tax moratorium, and the Senate is scheduled to take up legislation this week. While extending the moratorium is better than letting it lapse, it leaves the door open for eventual taxation and creates a climate of uncertainty for individuals and businesses that rely on the Internet.

The moratorium will be extended. And again and again. It doesn't need to have the symbolic gesture of being made "permanent". Extending it but not making it permanent does not fill out the sensationalism of "they may start!" because even if they were to make it permanent now there's nothing stopping them from changing the law any time they saw fit.

[obeygiant]

Aren't they already taxing ISPs? I think I pay like 44 a month for Comcast internet.

In Michigan they just passed a new tax on services.

[solvs]

Are we supposed to understand the purpose of this thread?

Apparently the Democrats want to raise taxes. Even though, in this case at least, that isn't happening at all. The real story is about Net Neutrality, but many of those same people who have a problem with this are ok with that because the GOP was. Or the Dems aren't. Whichever.

Wondering why the Repubs didn't go ahead and make it permanent either when they had the chance though.

[IJ Reilly]

Apparently the Democrats want to raise taxes. Even though, in this case at least, that isn't happening at all. The real story is about Net Neutrality, but many of those same people who have a problem with this are ok with that because the GOP was. Or the Dems aren't. Whichever.

Wondering why the Repubs didn't go ahead and make it permanent either when they had the chance though.

I don't know what is or isn't happening, why, what effect it might or might not have, or who is or is not doing it -- but I'm worried and outraged anyway and feel the need to take immediate action to stop it, and can't for the life of me understand why everyone doesn't feel exactly the same way. Don't just do something, stand there!

[furcalchick]

i hope we don't see email taxes, it will really cut me off with long gone friends that i can't see anymore...and i bet we'll see alot of outrage with this.

[CanadaRAM]

Hype mongering from an interest group.

Nobody is suggesting taxing emails. That's a straw man.

The real issue is applying sales taxes evenly across the board on interstate orders of goods -- so Amazon can't get away with selling Macs sales-tax free.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Hype mongering from an interest group.

Nobody is suggesting taxing emails. That's a straw man.

The real issue is applying sales taxes evenly across the board on interstate orders of goods -- so Amazon can't get away with selling Macs sales-tax free.

The question then arises, which sales tax do you levy? If I, in Alabama, purchase a computer over the net from Amazon (in CA, IIRC), do I pay my own state's sales tax or California's sales tax? Some will argue place of purchase, some will argue place of primary use. When I was in Atlanta last month, I paid Georgia's taxes, even on merchandise for use here at home.

NB: Alabama currently requires anyone filing a state tax return to declare the aggregate value of all internet purchases for that year and pay 4% sales tax (the state-level levy).

[Badandy]

NB: Alabama currently requires anyone filing a state tax return to declare the aggregate value of all internet purchases for that year and pay 4% sales tax (the state-level levy).

You only pay 4 percent for state sales tax? Wow, long shot from my wonderful Los Angeles sales tax of 8.25 percent.

[solvs]

Don't just do something, stand there!
I'd rather sit, thank you. Maybe even lie down for a spell. I'm lazy like that.

i hope we don't see email taxes
That's not going to happen, but this group wants you to think it will.

[CorvusCamenarum]

You only pay 4 percent for state sales tax? Wow, long shot from my wonderful Los Angeles sales tax of 8.25 percent.

Actually here in Tuscaloosa, we pay 9%. 4% goes to the state, 4% to the county, and 1% to the city. The flipside is that we have some of the lowest property taxes in the country.

[obeygiant]

WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate has approved legislation extending a moratorium on state Internet access taxes for seven years.

With only days left before the Internet tax ban was set to expire, the Senate reached a compromise between lawmakers who proposed a shorter extension and those who insisted it should be made permanent.

"By keeping the Internet tax-free and affordable, Congress can encourage Internet use for distance learning, telemedicine, commerce and other important services," Republican Sen. Ted Stevens, of Alaska, said in a statement on Thursday night.

The vote came about two weeks after the House of Representatives approved a four-year extension of the Internet tax ban.

The two chambers must work out their differences on the bill before a final version can be approved and signed by President George W. Bush.

On Friday, Bush listed the Internet tax ban extension among a list of tasks that Congress had failed to accomplish.

"I urge Congress to keep the Internet tax-free -- and to get a bill to my desk that I can sign," Bush said.

reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/mediaNews/idUSN2635150220071026)

Thread Solved. :)

[CanadaRAM]

The question then arises, which sales tax do you levy?

As Apple does -- the tax of the delivery address.
That of course puts a large burden onto the seller to maintain tax tables and make remittances to all states.

Or if legislated, the tax of the seller's state, with a revenue sharing agreement between states. Complex in the other direction.

Of course in Canada we have a federal value added tax, which is applied across the board, so that is a third option, but may not be doable in the USA.

[mactastic]

I'm surprised Ted Stevens dares to make any more statements about the series of tubes email moves through...