inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK |  here is one thing I agree with ATT on.
but not only do we need to ban tax on access, we need to ban taxes on ecommerce as well!
--
"WHEN THE LAUGH TRACK STARTS THEN THE FUN STARTS!" |
|
Old_Grouch
Don't just sit there silly DO something
Premium
join:2004-05-26
Greenwood, IN
clubs:
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Wonder why
I suppose you could imagine that at&t feels sorry for us and wants to champion keeping a lid on taxes.
Or, you could believe they are worried that if enough people get irritated at taxes they might have to withdraw some of their shared overhead costs on the bill like regulatory cost recovery and the slew of other "pay my expenses" treats they dish up monthly.
--
At Team Discovery we know how to get more outta that danged 'puter of yours! |
|
whocares
Premium
join:2003-07-26
..
| reply to inteller
Re: here is one thing I agree with ATT on.
AT&T is also petitioning its employees to jump into the fight, urging them to send mail to their representatives via this web form at the "Don't Tax Our Web" coalition
i agree with you & AT&T, i don't mind paying my fair share of tax's,but IF you get a (detailed) bill as i do look at all the tax's already on it,13 lines of nothing but tax.
--
I've learned That when you plan to get even with someone, you are ONLY letting that person continue to hurt you.I REFUSE to allow YOU to hurt me anymore
|
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  New Tax Agenda
The Democrat Party has stated that it will not renew any Bush tax cuts. I wonder if this tax ban is one of those that they won't bother to renew.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
 ·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
| Confused
If internet access gets taxed, wouldn't that impact *consumers* only? I mean business can certainly afford higher costs than consumers could easily accomodate. So how would internet access costs go up $85? Why would ISP's raise their rates due to a tax that they wouldn't themselves levy?
I can't imagine that taxing internet access would increase the price by $85. I mean, that's more than double than most people pay already. That works out to a tax rate of like 200%, right? Isn't that a little egregarious?
Would taxing internet access actually be useful? I mean it would fund buildouts that the states could use to supplement the whiny incumbents who won't build out in areas they don't see as worth the investment. Of course, it would also probably turn into an abused fund just like the USF, and it would do nothing than serve as a slush fund like all the other taxes we pay, so I can see why it's also not a good idea when we already have issues with other "well-meaning but it's time to ditch them" taxes.
As for taxing ecommerce, I still get taxed like buying in any other store, if the place I do business with has a physical presense in the state I also live in (see MWave or NewEgg), so where's the no-tax on the internet commerce that some enjoy, but some states don't?
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | We wont have any bridges,scholls ect.. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to DHRacer
$85 per year ...which would be ~$7/month extra...
Still, 'net access is already priced about where it should be for what's available, in most cases. Any increases would truly be a shame, esp. in the form of taxation...
Most states (all?) do require in-state tax. That seems fair, and is usually pretty normal. It's been working fine for years anyway. I mean, it makes sense to me at least.
"Of course, it would also probably turn into an abused fund just like the USF, "
Yep. Agreed. |
|
Amadeus
Premium
join:2005-05-02
Miami, FL | reply to inteller
Re: here is one thing I agree with ATT on.
Ditto 
No more $#@% taxs! |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Just used the link, thanks
Fired off some emails, supporting Tax ban.
Thank you. |
|
DHRacer
Fire Survivor
join:2000-10-10
Lake Arrowhead, CA
·Charter Pipeline
·Verizon west (ex G..
| reply to amungus
Re: Confused
ahh. per year. I was thinking per month, which was getting my "revolution!" sense all a tingling.
Seriously, we can't make do with the taxes we already have that should have died already, so considering past performance, I don't see why we need new avenues for fiscal abuse.
--
"No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them." (R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing /3M Corp.) |
|
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | I concur
Tax ban !!! |
|
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14
| Is this a Federal Government issue?
I've never understood why the Congress stuck its nose into taxing internet access. It seems to me to be a state issue. But the quaint notion of Federalism seems to be a lost concept...
Congress can and should ensure that state taxes are not assessed on interstate e-commerce. |
|
onDvine
Premium
join:2005-01-29
So. CA, USA
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to DHRacer
Re: Confused
said by DHRacer  :... Why would ISP's raise their rates due to a tax that they wouldn't themselves levy? ... Who do you think would be collecting the taxes levied? They'd be added to customers' monthly bills with the company as an intermediary.
--
The animals share with us the privilege of having a soul. ▪Pythagoras |
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| reply to DHRacer
said by DHRacer :If internet access gets taxed, wouldn't that impact *consumers* only? I mean business can certainly afford higher costs than consumers could easily accomodate. actually what will happen is business will simply pass on the cost to the consumer... this is a myth that businesses can afford higher costs... yes they can, but they will just pass it on to you and me... just like taxes get passed on to you and me... |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | reply to brooklynman4
 do you mean schools ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
EUS
Kill cancer
Premium
join:2002-09-10
Montreal, QC
clubs: | reply to Old_Grouch
Re: Wonder why
Good point. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| reply to LostInWoods
Re: Is this a Federal Government issue?
said by LostInWoods : But the quaint notion of Federalism seems to be a lost concept... Just to clue you in, that happened around 1789. |
|
blitz
@WYOMING.COM
| reply to DHRacer
Re: Confused
"Business can certainly afford higher costs......"
This is a huge fallacy.
BUSINESSES DO NOT PAY TAXES!!!!
They pass the tax along to you, the consumer. Do you honestly believe that a business is willing to pay that tax and let it affect thier profits?
Just like your employer doesn't pay social security taxes, health care benifits, ect. All of that is taken out of your paycheck.
Business pass along all thier expenses to the consumer. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to pnh102
Re: New Tax Agenda
said by pnh102 :The Democrat Party has stated that it will not renew any Bush tax cuts. I wonder if this tax ban is one of those that they won't bother to renew. Two Points:
1. The name of the party, as incorporated, is "The Democratic Party". If we are gonna leave letters out, then I think I will call the other guys "Repubics". 
2. Huge leap of logic, in the service of FUD. There has never been an Internet Access Tax. In fact, the ban started back during the Clinton Administration, as a bipartisan effort.
Now, I think Karl should take away your privilege of writing the phrase "Bush Bashing" for 2 weeks. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by TScheisskopf :1. The name of the party, as incorporated, is "The Democrat ic Party". I'm being nice. As this is a family website, I won't write what I would normally call them.
said by TScheisskopf :2. Huge leap of logic, in the service of FUD. There has never been an Internet Access Tax. In fact, the ban started back during the Clinton Administration, as a bipartisan effort. We can both agree though, that if we can dream it, they can tax it, and that goes for both parties.
said by TScheisskopf :Now, I think Karl should take away your privilege of writing the phrase "Bush Bashing" for 2 weeks. I didn't write "bashing."
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
