how-to block ads
Who should be taxed: carriers or content providers?
If you tax the local internet carrier, the cost will passed to the customer who is already overburdened with taxes.
If you tax the company that surreptitiously collects personal information and then sells it for a profit, you found the correct source. These are the people who help generate spam, junk mail, and ads that follow you across the internet. They can't force individuals to buy their products, join their lists, or subscribe to their newsletters, but they can pass their cost onto the people who buy their lists. You can mark junk mail as "return to sender" and give it back to your local post office.
The folks in the beltway have no clue how many people live in rural America with slow or no internet, and no McDonald's with WiFi for homework. There are schools that don't have the internet, new computers, or even enough older computers. There are rural libraries without internet and computers, too.
It is a grand pipe dream to think of an America with fast coast-to-coast internet that has competition too. It ain't gonna happen. Unless you are in a very large metro area most Americans have, and will only have, access to one phone company and one cable company for internet access; some don't even have that. In rural America, the question is always: which is the lesser evil? Both are overpriced; both usually provide mediocre to lousy service - depending upon the problem. GREAT SERVICE is as rare as hen's teeth.
Farmers are more likely to use GPS for crops than to use the internet to watch movies. The seat in a John Deer is a different world than a cushy seat in the 48 do-little legislatures, and U.S. Congress.
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside
said by linicx:This isn't about taxing spammers, it's about taxing legitimate web services like Google, Netflix, etc.
If you tax the company that surreptitiously collects personal information and then sells it for a profit, you found the correct source.
And even if you still think that taxing content providers is a good idea, where does it end? How can you justify taxing one web site and not the rest? Should Joe Average have to pay a tax because he wants to put up a blog? After all, he's now a content provider.
Oh, only big content providers will be charged? Can you guarantee that? Is the government going to put that in writing? Who decides how big you have to be before you get charged?
While we're at it, why not add a special tax to shipping companies to help maintain the roads? How about a special tax on companies like Amazon and eBay to help fund the post office? Maybe a tax on companies that make electric/electronic devices to help fund the electric companies?
And by the way, what happened to all that money that subscribers like me have been paying into the Universal Service Fund? I thought that was supposed to pay for telecommunications maintenance and expansion?
This is a clear case of double-dipping. I pay for internet access, companies like Google pay for internet access, I don't see why they should be the ones to pay for the ISP's infrastructure.
This bafoon linicx just wrote a bunch of
spam content that he provided for us. He needs to be taxed
|reply to linicx |
If we tax content providers, they'll start charging for their services. When they charge, folks will stop using them. Bye Bye tax base. Ooops. Now we're addicted to those taxes to pay for more pork barrel programs coming from the clowns in DC. What are we going to do now? If we get rid of the program, it'll throw us into a recession because the government already anticipated the potential income for 10 years of this new tax, borrowed that amount yesterday and spent it today. Ooops! Better print more money.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.