Can we all agree W's right on this? Surely everyone in the D&D will be on this same side for once, non? http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108302270893994195,00.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks -- Taxing the Net April 27 2004 President Bush renewed his call yesterday for a permanent ban on taxing Internet access, particularly the high-speed phone, cable and satellite varieties known as broadband. The White House is hoping that the Senate, which is scheduled to address the issue this week, was paying attention. We hope so, too. A small pro-tax contingent of Senate Republicans, under pressure from Governors and state legislatures back home, successfully conspired to allow the five-year-old moratorium on federal and state Internet access taxes to lapse last fall. The House has already voted to renew the ban, but usual GOP suspects such as Tennessee's Lamar Alexander and Ohio's George Voinovich have used procedural tactics to prevent the Senate from following suit. States argue that the recent economic downturn necessitates tapping cyberspace as a brand new cash cow to fund vital public services. But watchdog groups like the Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform are quick to point out that tax receipts at the state and local level have doubled over the past 12 years. If states are in the red, it's because of their inability to control spending. Last year, state tax collections overall increased another 4.5%. According to Census data, 2003 fourth-quarter receipts jumped 9.3% over the corresponding period in 2002. That represents the highest such percentage increase in more than 15 years. Mr. Bush said yesterday that broadband deployment plays an increasingly important role in the nation's economy and that advancements in fields like education and health care depend on it. Yet the U.S. ranks 10th world-wide in broadband technology and its availability. The President made clear that taxing access won't improve the situation. "In order to make sure it gets spread to all corners of the country, it must be affordable," said Mr. Bush. "We must not tax broadband access. If you want broadband access throughout society, Congress must ban taxes on access." Without mentioning their names, the President was speaking to those Republican Senators and others who have stood in the way of renewing the moratorium. Mr. Alexander, a former Tennessee Governor playing his federalist card, has gone so far as to posit that banning such taxes amounts to an "unfunded mandate" on the states. He and his co-sponsors, Senators Voinovich and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, have introduced a bill that would clear the way for a Pandora's box of Internet taxes. Their goal is to block any federal pre-emption of state and local authority to tax Internet access and, ultimately, electronic commerce. This is precisely why we have a Commerce Clause. It was devised to prevent state and local entities from taxing interstate commerce. The Internet's unique architecture and decentralized nature lend themselves to the very type of tax abuse that the Constitution guards against. Under Mr. Alexander's bill, not only could Internet access still be taxed, but so could all types of Internet usage. Thousands of localities nationwide would be allowed to levy fees on electronic correspondence that neither originates nor terminates in their jurisdiction -- from e-mails to Google searches to J. Crew.com purchases. As for Mr. Alexander's unfunded mandate charge, this wouldn't be the only example of Congress restricting state and local taxing authority. Federal law already pre-empts states and localites from taxing things like airline tickets, retirement income of nonresidents and certain mobile phone calls. Surely, electronic commerce belongs on this list. Where the Internet will take us remains anyone's guess. But we doubt that allowing the nation's telephone tax and regulatory blob to absorb the digital economy is the fastest way to get us there. A bill sponsored by Virginia Senator George Allen and supported by the White House would make permanent the ban on Internet access taxes. Senator John McCain has put forth a compromise proposal that's better than what we have now but doesn't go far enough. Essentially, it would extend the moratorium for another four years while allowing some broadband (DSL lines in select states) to be taxed. That's probably unacceptable to the states because it still pre-empts their authority to tax. The real problem with anything short of a permanent ban is that it keeps the issue alive to be debated down the road. That creates uncertainty, which is the last thing the industry needs. A permanent ban would be more difficult to resurrect. It would also incentivize a telecom sector that stands ready to invest billions to upgrade networks and make high-speed Internet access available to all American homes and small businesses.
Red herring. They tax telephone access. Isn't that rather important for commerce and growth. Fuel and electricity. Kind of handy too. Real issue is taxation overall. Too much? Too little? Who should tax? Pandering to a particular industry's whim, and appearing to be oh so concerned when really doing nothing at all doesn't serve anyone. I imagine the poor are all ready to sign on to broadband, but won't do it if there's the risk of a 5% tax. That said -- DONT TAX MY NET!!! (though i can't think of a credible reason to single it out for federal exemptions).
Don't tax the net. Everything is over-taxed as it, especially if you live in such socialist states as NY or California.
This is another tax cut for the rich. Most poor people probably don't even have computers. How does this help them? Personally, I stand to benefit so that is fine. I'll save about $3-5 a month. Yea!!!!! Whoo whoo. Well intenioned, I suppose, but it generally doesn't help the people that it intends to help...as usual.
Wow. A tax that doesn't exist is a tax cut. I guess we Texans get a tax cut every year they don't enact a state income tax.
Why tax something that is both an engine of growth for the present and future AND an incredibly powerful innovative tool? I bet if these congressmen actually considered the efficiency and welfare ramifications of this tax, they'd realize how bad an idea it is. There's a growing literature on the economics of electronic commerce and the internet, but I'm not familiar with any papers that have quantified the welfare losses from internet taxation (although I'm sure they're out there). I'll take a look. Horrible idea.
Poor people don't. His premise is that everybody should have Inet access. How does this help? The people that this helps are the people that can already afford to buy it. Middle class on up.
Some do. Depends on your definition of poor. How does making the product more expensive help them get it? But if it costs more, fewer people will buy it, slowing broadband rollout (and the technology that goes with that) and potentially hampering technological progress. And at what point does "they can afford it" cease to be true? That seems to be said about every tax. At some point, they can't afford it, especially when you go by your definition that every dollar not paid in taxes is a tax cut.
Sorry, even on this the D&D cannot agree. I'm all for a tax. Why should internet be any different from everything else we tax. I also want taxes on sales through the internet. I understand the desire to spur the growth of the internet with tax inducements and I think it was appropriate a little while ago. But, the fire is strong now and it's not going out; we don't need to fan it any longer.
It depends what your definition of IS is. C'mon! Parcing words are we? Common sense tells us that middle class (on up) have far more computers than the poor. Therefore, this tax break provides an immediate benefit to middle class (on up). You can't rollout broadband to people that, disproportionately to the public at large, don't own computers. If W wants to do something, figure out a way to provide computers to people. You are deflecting the point. The point is that this effort by bush immediately benefits those that he makes no mention of...people that already can affort it.
Soooo We've resorted to the rich vs poor debate again. I really don't think a sales tax on net access is going to prevent poor people from signing on...it's just such a small component to the overall cost of being on-line. The cost overall certainly keeps some people from access -- but i doubt it's so sensitive that an extra 5-7% is the kicker. I also disagree that broadband access is such a driving economic force, yet so incredibly price sensitive that any tax -- the type of tax that's on telephone, fuel, hotels, travel, etc -- would halt this progress. I'll agree that these nickle and dime extra tax here and there are a huge burden. And I tend to disagree with them on principle alone. But why single out net-access??? Sounds cool on TV, i suppose. I just hate the muddying of income and consumption taxes to include or exclude sources based on political whims. I'll agree we don't need yet another new tax, but shouldn't local authorities have the option of imposing one if they see fit and are willing to sell it to their communities?
This tax break is effectively like W telling me that he is eliminating taxes on jet fuel for private planes to spur growth for private planes. I could give a crap. If I am poor, this tax break is meaningless. Here's another way of viewing this. Four of the top 20 campaign contributors to the Republican party in 2000 were telcom/tech giants. ATT - $2,372,571 Microsoft - $1,594,135 SBC - $1,025,182 Verizon - $912,176 The broadband adoption rate hasn't been as strong as many company would like. Since the monthly charges of broadband are higher than dial-up, profits are higher. These companies want to find ways to convert more people to broadband. This is simply another example of big business buying out our politicians. And W sugar coating it us to so we think he is doing us all a big favor.
You're parsing words by mentioning the poor without ever mentioning who you mean by the poor. I know a good many people who live paycheck to paycheck, not making very much money who own computers. Sure, it may well be that the more money you make, the more likely you are to have a computer (though that isn't necessarily my experience since people like my father, who makes quite a good living, doesn't own a computer and couldn't work one if he got it). Is it someone who makes $10K per year. Or $22K per year with a couple of kids (like me last year, though it can't be me because I have two computers and broadband access). So why not make it that much harder to have access if they should ever get a computer, for whatever reason. And, in the meantime, allow the governments to enact a new tax which will cost more technology jobs and slow progress. Technology does benefit people. And once again, you deflect the point, who's to say they can afford it. Like I said, I made roughly $22K last year. I have two kids, a 15 year-old and a 11 year-old (and I've been attempting to save like crazy with college coming up). Start making things more expensive, add another tax that will end up meaning less money spent in the community and less money paid by businesses and it makes it that much harder to make ends meet. Start making it more difficult for technological advancements, and it hurts everyone. If broadband gets more expensive, that may mean that something else has to go.
So if we're going to argue about specific taxes and subsidies, remind me again why we subsidize the sugar industry in America. There was an article today explain public libraries today are surging in popularity because they offer mostly free internet access to younger, poorer, and older audiences. I think Microsoft is providing the hardware and software, not sure about the net access, though.
The definition of poor isn't really relevant. Why are you taking issue with that? mrpaige, I understand there are exceptions to every rule. I'm sure some poor people own computers. However, the % of househols w/ computers, I'm sure has a tight correlation to the income of that household. This is even true with televisions. Why are you arguing that? All that isn't even the point either. Who, by in large, do you think currently purchases broadband? My belief is that it is overwhemingly the people that can afford it. Therefore, this tax releif has an IMMEDIATE benefit to those people. This may have some long term beneficial impact on technology but I beleive there are better ways of accomplishing this than saving people $3/month. All that being said, this isn't even about rich/poor people. It is about W padding the pockets of big business. And like any politician, sugar coating it to us to make us feel he's doing us a favor.
