ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to axus
Re: Who Sold Us Out?
said by axus  :...Once the internet is ubiquitous, taxing it will not be a huge burden. I still don't want it taxed then, but higher priorities might come up. Yeah, like paying off the costs of expanding and maintaining the empire. Last time around they taxed us for the costs of war for over a hundred years (in total) starting in 1898:
"In late April 1898, Congress passed a resolution declaring that a state of war had existed since April 21, 1898, between the United States and Spain. Although the Spanish-American War was short, its financing needs resulted in a federal budget deficit. In the landmark case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. the Supreme Court had nullified the income tax of 1894. Many in Congress felt that tariff increases could create too much disturbance with industry. As a result, the leaders in Congress felt that the revenues required for military expenditures either should come from increases in existing domestic taxes or supplements of new taxes of the same type. Thus, an excise tax on telephone service was introduced for the first time in 1898.?
The tax has been repealed and reinstated many times over the years, ending lastly in July, 2006.
See here |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to LostInWoods
Your statement is misleading: "There's nothing inherently interstate about internet service any more than phone service.". Long distance phone service is extremely interstate... just like the internet. Local phone service is usually not interstate, but the internet is.
Phone service is taxed somewhat, but that's because the fed did not prevent its taxation. Just because they do not prevent taxation of one, doesn't mean they cannot prevent taxation of another.
I like the idea that laws come up for renewal after a while. It's slightly disingenuous to make laws with expiration dates; because the law can be changed at any time, this 7 year ban could be un-voted next year.. same as a permanent ban could. Once the internet is ubiquitous, taxing it will not be a huge burden. I still don't want it taxed then, but higher priorities might come up. |
|
moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD | reply to pnh102
Can't wait to see what happens in our state house this year.  |
|
LostInWoods
join:2004-04-14
| reply to pnh102
It's the states that want the tax money, not the feds.
I don't understand what business the Federal government has telling the states they can't tax internet service the same way they do telephone or cable. There's nothing inherently interstate about internet service any more than phone service. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :Who are the pro-tax Commies who insisted this ban be temporary? Most likely a bunch of politicians that just couldn't swear off the money forever. Like an alcoholic who says "I won't drink today." He can't make himself say "I'll never take another drink."
Politicians say "Well, we can do without this revenue for now....."
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Who are the pro-tax Commies who insisted this ban be temporary?
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. |
|
