Will You Soon Pay a State Broadband Tax?November 1 deadline looms, Congress still talking... ( old news - 12:31PM Thursday Sep 20 2007) tags: prices · business · PoliticsYou currently don't pay state taxes on your broadband connection, thanks to a temporary ban on state taxation first created back in 1998 and then extended in 2004. With that extension set to expire this November, lawmakers are battling over whether to make the state tax ban permanent or temporary. There has even been some talk of extending the tax ban to cable television. Many are politically split on whether we need a national broadband policy, but everyone seems in uniform agreement in their hatred of taxation (except the States, that is). Companies like Google and Verizon, who've been at each other's throats over network neutrality and the 700Mhz wireless broadband auction, are congenial bedfellows on this issue. Says Google on their policy blog: "Keeping Internet access tax-free is also another way that government can help further the growth of the web to all corners of the U.S. At a time when American policymakers are working to increase broadband penetration rates and improve the quality of broadband services to consumers, we believe that increasing barriers to access -- whether they are created by the government or by the private sector -- will only frustrate our common goal of greater access to better broadband for all consumers." The Congressional debate over making the Internet access tax ban permanent has been painfully slow going, but at least one Republican lawmaker believes they have enough votes to kill Internet access taxes forever. If Congress fails to act by November 1, the current ban will expire, leaving States free to tax your broadband connection and add to your monthly bill.
Related:- Broadband USF & VoIP 'Tax'
- 'Spanish American War' Tax Ends
- Your Broadband Bill Could Soon Rise
- Martin Endorses 'A La Carte' Laws
- Politicians Debate Internet Access Tax
- Senate Still Fighting Over Broadband Tax Ban
- ZDNET: The Evil EFF's Quest For Metered Bandwidth
- New Wireless ETF Policies Compared
|
page: 1 · 2  |
 |  | 
Rick
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-06
Waterbury, CT
clubs:  | Re: Said it before your proposal sounds very reasonable. And, once and for all..will end this debate.
--
The Coyote captured the RR! Roadrunner Rick is now Comcastic! | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| said by PeterCollins  :The only upside to this that I could see would be if it could be used to set precedent. Let's say a 3% percent tax is levied on internet access. Then let's drop the standard telecommunications taxes to 3% also. Not to mention, perhaps, franchise fees on cable. Also set them at 3% That way, any "communications" service is dealt with on the same level. This would hopefully encourage technologists to develop "apps" with the most efficient transport method in mind, rather then jumping to the "well it's VOIP so it's not telephone" approach. Video regardless of how it's delivered - 3% Phone regardless of how it's delivered - 3% Internet Access regardless of how it's delivered - 3% There is NO justification for taxation of internet access/use. The states don't have the right to tax any/every activity just because it exists. They have contributed NOTHING, and should reap that reward. Same with the Feds; the consumer has already paid for the infrastructure, the maintenance thereof, and the access to it, why a use tax as well? The reasons for NOT taxing internet access are well understood, and reasonable, the greed of revenue hungry tax authorities notwithstanding.
Appeasement and/or accommodation with tax authorities of any description on this issue is total surrender to a short-sighted fiscal policy that will be abusive and have long term detrimental consequences without any offset whatsoever in terms of value added. Not a penny for the profligate tax whores, say I! Period! | |
| | | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Said it before Taxes aren't just to pay for the immediate costs of things. They pay for the whole infrastructure of society.
In the case of telecom, it's not just the wires, it's also the education that enables people to deal with tech and benefit from it; police to stop thieves taking the copper; all the other government services that help us enjoy peaceful and beneficial lives - roads, utilities, fire departments, courts, military, etc. - even if they are only indirectly related to the particular goods or services.
There is no reason for internet in particular to be exempt from ordinary taxes that apply to other sales. | |
| | | | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Said it before said by swhx7 :Taxes aren't just to pay for the immediate costs of things. They pay for the whole infrastructure of society. In the case of telecom, it's not just the wires, it's also the education that enables people to deal with tech and benefit from it; police to stop thieves taking the copper; all the other government services that help us enjoy peaceful and beneficial lives - roads, utilities, fire departments, courts, military, etc. - even if they are only indirectly related to the particular goods or services. Except we have property taxes for schools and roads, utilities, fire departments and courts. Military comes out of income taxes. The broadband tax is nothing more than a additional money grab to line the pockets of the politicians. It is not like the tax will be plowed back in to the network. No, it will go to all of the other B$ or frienly pols want to spend it on. Plus we already have the USF which is supposed to cover many of the infrastructure costs and we know what success that has been. | |
| | | | |
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Said it before Some taxes are specifically allocated to users of a government-provided services that are relate to what is taxed - for example gas taxes for roads, property taxes for schools. The relationship is never exact (e.g. residences are owned by childless people as well as parents of kids in schools), but it's close enough to seem fair to most people.
Other taxes are general-purpose and this category includes sales taxes. Internet is a service sold in the state and should be subject to state sales tax like other services (or not, if the state taxes only goods and not services).
The fact that taxpayer subsides that were supposed to build out broadband and make it faster, etc. were sucked off to profits instead, is a separate issue. Let's get rid of corporate welfare. The "last mile" should be a public utility to which telcos and cable could get wholesale access for fees to the city or state, and on which they could then offer service on a competitive basis. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | 
John Galt
Spricket24
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Said it before For your convenience...
--
A is A | |
| | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by swhx7 :Some taxes are specifically allocated to users of a government-provided services that are relate to what is taxed - for example gas taxes for roads, property taxes for schools. The relationship is never exact (e.g. residences are owned by childless people as well as parents of kids in schools), but it's close enough to seem fair to most people. Other taxes are general-purpose and this category includes sales taxes. Internet is a service sold in the state and should be subject to state sales tax like other services (or not, if the state taxes only goods and not services). The fact that taxpayer subsides that were supposed to build out broadband and make it faster, etc. were sucked off to profits instead, is a separate issue. Let's get rid of corporate welfare. The "last mile" should be a public utility to which telcos and cable could get wholesale access for fees to the city or state, and on which they could then offer service on a competitive basis. That does NOT stop the state a federal governments from siphoning off tax receipts from where they are supposed to go to where they ultimately go. | |
| | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
edit:
September 21st, @08:40PM
| The basic point I was trying to make is that the existing taxes are not going to go away.
Your municipalities rely on local telecommunications taxes and franchise fees to pay for Joe in Public Works to do the locates for utilities in your local right of ways and to pay for local access programming, etc. In Illinois, those fees can be place directly into the General fund of the community to allow them to be used for just about anything the city does.
That being said, and assuming taxes are not going to go away, a more realistic compromise would be the equalization of taxes on all forms of "communications services."
The Baby Bells are fantastic spinners of what their services actually are.
A bell will approach a city saying their new video service is not subject to franchising because it's delivered over their phone lines - making it a telecommunications service - and therefore the city has no right to interfere with their build out.
The city then responds, "Well, if it's a telecommunications service, then it's subject to telecommunications taxes (which are typically higher than established franchise fees.)"
The Bell then blushes and says, "Did we say telecommunications services? We meant data services. No taxes or franchise fees."
The city then replies, "Data services? Those are largely unregulated, and we have no obligation to let you build in our rights of way. But if we could reach an equitable agreement...perhaps you'd agree to serve all our citizens equally?"
This is usually the point when the Bell leaves the table, and begins negotiating with lawsuits or statewide franchising lobbying instead.
Level the playing field at the federal or state level and let the best technology win through the best delivery model.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :The basic point I was trying to make is that the existing taxes are not going to go away... There are NO existing internet access taxes, period (with exception of a couple of isolated "grandfathered-in" municipal and/or county tax authorities in a couple of states)!
Sales taxes on internet access is non-existent. Access tax is an unsupportable proposition, unless you feel that anything/everything should be taxed, the economic, technological and social consequences be damned. There should be NO taxes on telecommunications of any kind, other than income tax on Telco/Cableco profits.
You want to collect some taxes? Perform a comprehensive audit of Telco equipment and rate-setting/billing practices to recover the billions stolen by Telcos who have over-depreciated inventory, depreciated inventory that doesn't exist, and in some cases never existed, in order to reduce income tax due, and/or used to set rates artificially high to produce real profit from phantom equipment carried on their books, or promised in return for tax incentives to provide network upgrades that never were built. To say nothing of "Regulatory Recovery" fees, and their ilk, which sap the consumer for billions of dollars for imaginary "costs", but which in reality are slush funds for lobbying efforts to maintain the Telco cartel.
As for Muni reliance on telecommunication taxes and franchise fees, you are mixing totally different things together and making unfounded assertions in support for your call to tax all "services" for the "general good".
There are presently NO INTERNET ACCESS TAXES, PERIOD! (Nor should there be.) And, that is the topic under discussion.
There is NO justification for taxation of internet access/use. The states don't have the right to tax any/every activity just because it exists. They have contributed NOTHING, and should reap that reward. Same with the Feds; the consumer has already paid for the infrastructure, the maintenance thereof, and the access to it, why a use tax as well? The reasons for NOT taxing internet access are well understood, and reasonable, the greed of revenue hungry tax authorities notwithstanding.
Appeasement and/or accommodation with tax authorities of any description on this issue is total surrender to a short-sighted fiscal policy that will be abusive and have long term detrimental consequences without any offset whatsoever in terms of value added. Not a penny for the profligate tax whores (you call them what you want), say I! Period! | |
| | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
edit:
September 24th, @05:57PM
| Re: Said it before "There are NO existing internet access taxes, period (with exception of a couple of isolated "grandfathered-in" municipal and/or county tax authorities in a couple of states)!"
Agreed.
Again, I think my point is being missed.
If we put a large scale overview out there, I think we can agree that on on local stage, you're paying roughly 12% to 13% in taxes right now on your "communications" services if you take cable, internet, and phone services (typically 5 to 6 percent for cable franchise fees, 7% on telephone services, and 0% on internet access).
Truth is the taxes aren't going to go away. It hurts the cities, states, etc. so they won't agree to changing it downward.
The only chance you have is to keep the rate about the same. As a technologist and government "whore", I'd link to encourage the best growth/development as well. What I've seen over and over again is telcos/cablecos use FCC definitions to escape regulation...regulations that are in many cases ridiculous, but none the less regulations that manage to treat technology differently from a tax basis.
VOIP anyone? This isn't phone....it's IP.
Lightspeed? This isn't cable....it's an IP service.
Please...
Treat them all the same. Tax them all the same. Create an environment in which the best technology, using the best transport mechanism wins. Encourage a level playing field.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :"There are NO existing internet access taxes, period (with exception of a couple of isolated "grandfathered-in" municipal and/or county tax authorities in a couple of states)!"Agreed. Again, I think my point is being missed... Nope! Your point is crystal clear. You think that taxes on old infrastructure, e.g., POTS and cable television, will be expanded to cover new fiber-optics based technologies. I say it isn't necessarily so. Sure, as tax revenue dwindles from the shrinking market share of POTS as wireless, cable and other VOIP services take the lions share of that market, and old-style cable franchising goes the way of the Dodo as Telcos enter that market, the tax revenue from existing telecommunications will fall-off as well, prompting tax authorities to attempt to cast their nets more widely. It is for this reason, along with many others, that any attempt to begin such a process be brought up by the short hairs immediately. The mechanism to prohibit these unnecessary and detrimental taxes is already in place, and merely needs be made permanent.
The truth is cities and states had NO BUSINESS TAXING TELECOMMUNICATIONS in the first place! It was originally a federally created and regulated monopoly that state and local tax authorities had no jurisdiction over (other than property and payroll taxes). While these greedy bastards attempt to raise taxes on old infrastructure and services as the market share of said services diminishes, to compensate for falling tax revenue, they will be driving the final nails in its coffin.
said by PeterCollins :Treat them all the same. Tax them all the same. Create an environment in which the best technology, using the best transport mechanism wins. Encourage a level playing field. I'll support "treat them all the same" and "tax them all the same", as long as that means NO TAXATION WHATSOEVER! Removing all telecommunication taxes other than income taxes on profits, while instituting tax credits for infrastructure investment to offset such income tax; along with creating a truly competitive telecommunications marketplace where all infrastructure ownership is divorced from the provision of services via that infrastructure; and which infrastructure is open to all service providers desiring to compete; would dictate the constant evolution of technology towards state of the art systems.
There are NO EXISTING INTERNET ACCESS TAXES and there is NO reason to change that. Let the tax authorities be content with the growth of the economic engine that is created, augmented and sustained by tax free access to the internet. | |
| | | | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Re: Said it before Understand that I don't support adding this tax "to compensate for falling tax revenue."
The taxes should be expanded (and equalized) to treat all services equally. Phone, Internet & Cable tv can all be delivered across the same fiber. Why should one be taxed differently than the other? Should we apply the "car vs. semi use of the road" model and tax by byte usage? If that was the case, for most homes television would see the highest taxes, followed by internet use, followed by phone.
Cities are responsible to look after the r.o.w., and pay employees to manage those rights of way. They can either tax those that use the r.o.w.(via fanchise fees or telco taxes), or just raise the property taxes for all to do the same.
Or your model - remove all the taxes on everything to do with communications. It will however then be shifted to property or sales taxes.
Take your pick.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :Understand that I don't support adding this tax "to compensate for falling tax revenue." The taxes should be expanded (and equalized) to treat all services equally. Phone, Internet & Cable tv can all be delivered across the same fiber. Why should one be taxed differently than the other? Should we apply the "car vs. semi use of the road" model and tax by byte usage? If that was the case, for most homes television would see the highest taxes, followed by internet use, followed by phone. Cities are responsible to look after the r.o.w., and pay employees to manage those rights of way. They can either tax those that use the r.o.w.(via fanchise fees or telco taxes), or just raise the property taxes for all to do the same. Or your model - remove all the taxes on everything to do with communications. It will however then be shifted to property or sales taxes. Take your pick. What utter BULLSHIT! Why do you persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable? They haven't been, and quite likely won't be for the forseeable future.
Why should telephone, VOIP, cable television or IPTV end users be taxed for access to these services at all? Why should such worthless, bogus taxes be expanded to cover all services and access to services?
Internet access certainly isn't taxed at the present time, and that fact is what this thread is all about; the renewal of the current BAN on internet access taxes, and possibly making the extended BAN permanent.
Cities charging Telcos and Cablecos for access to public "rights of way" began in a era of regulated monopoly that technically no longer exists. Public rights of way for telephone and cable services require little maintenance that isn't provided by the lessees of those rights of way who pay for use. Taxes on telephone and cable end users is double-dipping, and has NOTHING to do with city maintenance, property tax, or provision of public telecommunications services; i.e., it is simply a tax revenue generating scheme for general fund use. I believe that end user taxes on the services under discussion are unjustified based on the fact that end users already pay for the infrastructure, services and access thereto, and the cities/states do not add value to the system through "use tax" revenue generated and siphoned off for general operating purposes.
"Take my pick"? OK, I pick NO END USER TAXES whatsoever on telecommunications services, forever! | |
| | | | | | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Re: Said it before Why do I persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable?
Regulation (Federal, State or Local) is not going to remove telco taxes or franchise type fees (taxes). It's a given.
Moving forward from that point, all "communications services" that use publicly held r.o.w. should be treated equally. Since we know the other two are not going away, we should move to treat them the same.
As to the cities not adding to the equation, who do you suggest should look out for the public rights of way? The cities or AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Cox? Would you prefer that AT&T get to decide where that 52B box goes (looks great in a front yard) or that the city p.w. (on your behalf) has some say in the matter?
Again you can take your pick on how you want to pay for that... "communications type taxes" that hit the users of the services, or just a blanket increase in property or sales taxes. The cost of the management of the r.o.w. (city services) has to come from somewhere.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :Why do I persist in insisting internet access taxes are inevitable? That's right! Internet access taxes are NOT inevitable, they have been banned, and will continue to be banned.
said by PeterCollins :Regulation (Federal, State or Local) is not going to remove telco taxes or franchise type fees (taxes). It's a given. Far from a given, as was the case of the telecommunications luxury tax imposed to fund the Spanish-American War, unnecessary, superfluous and obsolete taxes can be removed/repealed. Although, it usually takes a lot longer than one would hope. I believe that taxes such as the ones you advocate should cease to exist because they are simply revenue grabs unassociated with the creation, maintenance or improvement of the services upon which they are levied.
said by PeterCollins :Moving forward from that point, all "communications services" that use publicly held r.o.w. should be treated equally. Since we know the other two are not going away, we should move to treat them the same. I agree, and NONE OF THESE SERVICES SHOULD BE TAXED since the use of the right of ways is already paid for by the lessees. What the lessees subsequently use it for is none of the local governments goddamned business, except as to the apportionment of income taxes on the businesses involved collected under different authority. The scenario you advocate is rather like AT&T's suggestion that content providers and internet end users should pay double for the same infrastructure and services they have already paid for. The cities behavior is no different from any other tenacious, mendacious bum looking for a free ride on the taxpayers while not providing any value added; not even entertainment.
said by PeterCollins :As to the cities not adding to the equation, who do you suggest should look out for the public rights of way? The cities or AT&T/Verizon/Comcast/Cox? Would you prefer that AT&T get to decide where that 52B box goes (looks great in a front yard) or that the city p.w. (on your behalf) has some say in the matter? Again you can take your pick on how you want to pay for that... "communications type taxes" that hit the users of the services, or just a blanket increase in property or sales taxes. The cost of the management of the r.o.w. (city services) has to come from somewhere. Hahahahahaha! What a fucking joke! In most localities, city services consist of sewer, water and in some cases electric utilities, and telecommunications infrastructure is co-located with these city utilities for the most part. The city charges fees to its residents for provision of municipal services which already include the cost of maintaining "right of ways". The telecommunication lessees of public "right of ways" pay for the maintenance of their portion of upkeep costs both in the leasehold fees they pay, and in direct expenses to maintain their equipment and the right of ways; e.g., pole replacement, excavations, repaving, etc.. Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued.
The taxes we are discussing are "use" taxes on end users of telecommunications services which bear no relation to the creation, regulation, or maintenance of telecommunication right of ways. These types of taxes are attempts by tax authorities to double-dip and extract additional revenue from end users who have already paid for the costs of providing services. Such taxes are tantamount to theft.
As the lines blur between Telco and Cableco in the transition from analog to digitally provided services the ability to identify, separate and slap additional taxes on these services will become much harder to do. The solution is not to slap a blanket use tax on all services, but to abandon these bogus counterproductive taxes altogether. | |
| | | | | | | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Re: Said it before "Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."
As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do.
Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services.
--
Peter I. Collins
Information Technologies Manager
City of Geneva, Illinois
pcollins@geneva.il.us
630.232.1743 | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :"Furthermore, AT&T is going to put their infernal boxes wherever they damn well please. Don't like it? Be prepared to be sued."As a city that's being sued by telco for that very issue, that's the city's job - to look out for and enforce proper use of the public rights of way regardless of whether it may cause a frivolous telco lawsuit. Telco's do not have eminent domain power in the cities they serve, nor should they be allowed to act as if they do. I agree wholeheartedly, but doubt the Telco lawsuit will be deemed frivolous by the courts, and, furthermore, the cities will probably lose. The point is the cities you say are collecting use taxes from end users to protect the right of ways are NOT collecting use taxes for this purpose, are NOT doing their job effectively, and will fail to prevent AT&T's placement policies because they, along with their state governments, have surrendered jurisdiction, either voluntarily, or involuntarily as a result of Telco lobbying at the federal level.
said by PeterCollins :Again, if you want to fix it all, treat them all the same. Since a city would be negligent in giving away use of its r.o.w. for free (the city still has to maintain the r.o.w. and oversee placement of its utilities for its citizens), tax them all the same: A flat tax for all communications services. No city gives away use of public right of ways, they charge the lessees a fee for such use. Cities are then trying to double-dip by taxing end users in the form of use tax for on services provided by the lessees which right of way costs are already included in the cost of service to end users, and then triple-dip through sales taxes on the services provided by lessees who have already paid the city for the leaseholds, and are desirous of extracting further tax revenue by taxing access to the internet as a separate service, and this behavior is unconscionable. Cities have NO INHERENT RIGHT TO TAX TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES OF ANY KIND. They especially have no right to collect internet access taxes, and in fact, are prohibited from doing so by the very legislation under discussion, up for renewal, and which, hopefully, will be made permanent. | |
| | | | | | | | | | PeterCollins
join:2005-05-23
Geneva, IL
| Re: Said it before Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications.
But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names.
The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. | |
| | | | | | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
edit:
September 27th, @03:29PM
| Re: Said it before said by PeterCollins :Again, your point is clear - cities, states, and feds have no right to tax communications. But they do tax them and are not going to give up their existing revenue sources regardless of how many times you call them names. The reality is that your closest shot of lowering the overall rates (services & taxes) is to encourage the best use of technology and level the tax playing field. You have some kind of vested interest in taxes on telecommunications, judging from your erroneous insistence that cities universally currently tax telecommunications.
They do not do any such thing in the city where I live. There are no city taxes on telecommunications anywhere in my geographic area. There are no internet access tax imposed by any tax authority anywhere, with the notable seven or so exceptions grandfathered in by the internet tax moratorium that is up for renewal. There is a very tiny ($0.27 on $11.50 phone bill) county assessment on telephone service in the county next to mine, but no such tax in any of the other surrounding counties, including mine.
The best thing to do about end user taxes on telecommunication services is to ban them all outright, thus allowing all technologies equal competition based on inherent merit/superiority/utility. That ban should include "use", "access" and "sales" taxes (except as result indirectly from income taxes on the entities providing service).
REUTERS:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on Thursday urged the Senate to make permanent the moratorium on taxes for Internet access and electronic commerce.
In a statement, the cabinet secretaries said passage of legislation keeping the Internet free of access taxes by the time the current moratorium expires on November 1 would help keep the Internet an "innovative force".
The Senate Commerce Committee is expected to consider a bill to extend the moratorium on Thursday. The ban has been in place since 1998 and was last reinstated in 2004 for a period of three years.
Internet service providers say the price of Internet access could rise by as much as 17 percent if the moratorium on state taxes were allowed to expire.
"Preventing the taxation of Internet access will help sustain an environment for innovation, ensure that consumers continue to have affordable access to the Internet, especially high-speed Internet, and strengthen the foundations of electronic commerce as a vital and growing part of our economy," Paulson and Gutierrez said." | |
| | | dogo88
join:2001-09-24
Old Bridge, NJ | comment If it's allowed to expire New Jersey will be the first to tax it. Remember, you heard it here first! | |
| | 
chiefeyes
join:2001-08-14
Thomaston, ME | Re: comment You can bet Maine will be right behind you -- if not a dead heat !!  | |
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
edit:
September 20th, @04:12PM
| Heard Montana is all ready and awaiting to push the button.
edit - typo
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
| | | 
rudnicke
Premium
join:2004-10-23
Rantoul, IL
clubs: | Oh no! I'm sure Illinois will be in the first top five to grab their share of Broadband taxes. Our government can't seem to stop spending money. | |
| | dogo88
join:2001-09-24
Old Bridge, NJ | Re: Oh no! Well, if you beat us, we'll have a higher rate! | |
| | | hacker90
join:2005-09-01
Winnebago, IL | Re: Oh no! Nah NJ will get off easily. If a Tax came here the rate will be f***ing high as hell. Gotta love blago here *sighs
Hacker | |
| | | 
bentman78
Bentley
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| I say Virginia. We're one of the two states that have a VOIP tax. Oh yeah, we pay taxes on our car every year too...hundreds of dollars.
My bet is VA>
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson | |
| 
N3OGH
They both suck, we're so screwed
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Only good tax is no tax... The fewer the better.
The gubment all ready takes a big enough chunk out of our collective hides.
I say ban it permanently, we pay enough as it is...
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | 
rirwin
Premium
join:2005-11-29
Columbus, OH
| Re: Only good tax is no tax... exactly, they need to repriortize how they spend (and no this isent a war funding bash post) im meaning not voting every year to give themselfs payraises for doing just bairly better then last year. Personaly i feel congressional payraises should be voted on by the ones who elected them to office, shoot we hired them,and are "employing" them, why the heck cant we say yes or no since its OUR money they get paid with, we can fire them but cant do this? | |
| | |
N3OGH
They both suck, we're so screwed
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Only good tax is no tax... Agreed.
Earmarks are out of control, from both parties. Congress makes too much money as it is.
Congress shouldn't make any more than the median income of the average American.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| 
outtherenost
Victim Of Changes
join:2001-05-30
Corona, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T Yahoo
| Taxed to death A tax for everything and everything gets a tax.
Will it ever end!
Why should the consumer be responsible for taxes such as these. Considering we don't have, broadband wise, what we were already taxed for years ago.
This is BS
--
Corona(like the beer), CA
AT&T 6016/768 Plan, $30.00/mo | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| IF you HAVE to tax it.... let the feds do it-or we will still have problems like with the franchises-too many to deal with. Myself,I think that it should not be taxed-communication infrastructure should be encouraged- not smothered by ever increasing taxes and UNECESSARY regulation. | |
| 
MagMan
Life is simpler when you tell the truth.
Premium
join:2003-10-01
Westlake, OH | Talk is Cheap Congress better act we pay enough damn taxes as is,screw the States.  | |
| | CMoore2004
i r teh smarts
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Jonesville, MI
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·HughesNet Satellit..
| What gives them the right? What gives states the right to tax, even if the bill isn't passed? Are they running the Internet? Do they own the infrastructure? Did they pay for the buildout? If you're going to argue that the USF paid for the buildout, remember it's us that already paid for it. I see no reason the government should be able to tax it.
--
Charter 5M | Windows XP MCE SP2 | Mobile AMD Athlon 64 4000+ | 1.5GB RAM | ATI Mobile Radeon X600 128MB | 120GB HDD | |
| | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: What gives them the right? How long have you been living in this country? | |
| | | 
MrMoody
Under the black helicopters
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | Re: Boston Tea Party Anyone?? No, you'd be off to Gitmo for terrorism. | |
| 
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |  Democrat Party Won't Bother
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
edit:
September 20th, @02:12PM
| Re: Democrat Party Won't Bother A congress controlled by the Democratic party that permanently bans any tax would have to be a portent of the apocalypse.
Maybe they'll extend it. | |
| | |
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| Re: Democrat Party Won't Bother said by lesopp :A congress controlled by the Democratic party that permanently bans any tax would have to be a portent of the apocalypse. I will applaud them if they do.
--
Only SHATNER is Kirk. | |
| | | JSM88
join:2000-12-20
Washington, DC
·RCN CABLE
edit:
September 20th, @03:49PM
| Both of you must now turn in your keyboards and go sit in the back of the room with the pointy caps on for the remainder of the Internet tax debate.
Let's review the facts:
1) the Original Ban on Internet taxes was written, proposed, and pushed through the Congress by a DEMOCRAT - Senator Ron Wyden or Oregon. It was the pressure from both democratic and republican former governors that serve in the Senate that prevented the ban from being permanent.
2) When the ban was renewed in 2003, again through the efforts of the DEMOCRAT, Sen. Wyden, the REPUBLICAN Senate leadership required the inclusion of an exception to allow the taxation of VOIP before they would let it move.
3) "I wonder why the Democrat party hasn't taken the time to introduce a permanent tax ban. It might help with Congress' 11% approval rating." BZZZP! A DEMOCRAT introduced a PERMANENT extension of the ban in this congress - The Wyden/McCain bill, and the only reason it hasn't moved yet is the opposition of Sen. Alexander and several other REPUBLICANS (ok and at least one DEMOCRAT, Sen. Carper.)
Anyone who still believes that Republicans are for lower taxes on folks making under $250k a year, as opposed to tax cuts for the truly wealthy and their heirs, at least any more than the Democrats, is buying a fairly old and aromatic line of bull. Both sides are equally for (and against) lower taxes for the majority of us, it's on the top 1% of incomes and estates where the parties radically diverge. | |
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Pittsburgh, PA | Interstate Commerce Shouldn't members of Congress remind the states that they have no power over interstate commerce. The internet doesn't stop at state lines. | |
| | |
|
|
will happen
·