May 22, 2007 3:26 PM PDT
Politicians weigh renewal of Net access tax ban
- Related Stories
-
Ban on monthly Net access taxes faces obstacles
April 17, 2007 -
Net neutrality, broadband taxes top House tech agenda
January 31, 2007 -
Senators aim to ease up on Net, phone taxes
January 4, 2007 -
Senators target Net, phone taxes
June 28, 2006
At issue is the scheduled expiration on November 1 of a law, initially enacted in 1998, that says local governments generally cannot tax Internet access, including DSL (digital subscriber line), cable modem and BlackBerry-type wireless transmission services. The law also prohibits governments from taxing items sold online in a different manner than those sold at brick-and-mortar stores, but it does not deal with sales taxes on online shopping.
That's the way it should remain, some politicians said at a brief hearing here convened by a House of Representatives panel on commercial and administrative law.
Tech Politics Rundown
about Internet taxation.
"If we could liken the Internet to a mall, a place where you can go in and purchase goods and services, and also liken it to a library, a place where you can go and pull a book, pull a resource, and obtain some information, why would we tax a person upon entering a mall or why would we tax a person upon entering the library?" asked Rep. Hank Johnson, a Democrat from Georgia.
Industries that provide Internet access services have long backed making the ban permanent, and they already enjoy support from some members of Congress. In the House, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat, has introduced such a measure, and senators have made similar moves.
But previous attempts at renewing the ban for more than two to four years have failed, in part because of resistance from state and local government lobby groups. State government representatives caution against making the moratorium permanent, saying it would deprive states indefinitely of vital revenue sources and that its original purpose--boosting the nascent Internet to commercial viability--has essentially been accomplished.
A 'slippery slope'
"If a moratorium is made permanent, there is a slippery slope where other industries will seek their own preemptions of state laws," said David Quam, director of federal relations for the National Governors Association.
The NGA supports the idea of extending the ban in a limited sense and for a defined time period, he added. He said reports by government auditors and the University of Tennessee have shown no statistical correlation between levels of broadband penetration and the existence of Internet access taxes.
Rep. Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican and one of 66 House members who co-sponsored the permanent ban proposal, suggested he wasn't swayed by that argument. "Taxes always impact everything else in our economy," he said. "I would assume they've had a major impact in this area as well."
As a rule, economists dislike taxes that could discourage investment, but taxes that could hinder build-out of the Internet are especially problematic, argued Scott Mackey, an economist and partner at the law firm Kimbell Sherman Ellis. He spoke on behalf of a coalition of Internet service providers, "backbone" providers and application and content companies that support a permanent extension of the tax ban.
"A permanent moratorium will send a strong, pro-investment signal to those entrepreneurs that are looking to improve communications and commerce over the Internet," he told the politicians.
A U.S. Senate committee is scheduled to weigh the issue at its own hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
A separate issue on one politician's mind was what to do about the collection of sales taxes on the Internet. State governments have long griped that they are losing revenue to booming e-commerce businesses that aren't required to collect taxes from customers in states where the businesses don't have a physical presence. Rep. Bill Delahunt, a Democrat from Massachusetts, said he was planning to try again at enacting a bill designed to address those concerns.
As for the Net tax ban, he said, "my own position is we ought to have a temporary moratorium until we finally resolve the issue of how the states are going to support public services with an eroding tax base predicated on the growth of e-commerce."
See more CNET content tagged:
ban,
moratorium,
tax,
Internet access,
politician
As for the Net tax ban, he said, "my own position is we ought to have a temporary moratoirum until we finally resolve the issue of how the states are going to support public services with an eroding tax base predicated on the growth of ecommerce."
-- end quote --
The problem I have with this statement is that when the ban is, again, temporarily placed on the internet access tax, only those interested in generating revenue will be thrown back into action that favor eliminating the ban altogether and they will create reports that say making the ban permanent will harm state and local revenue while those who are in favor of keeping the ban permanent will go on to other issues of more immediate interest and general 'todaity' - a 'fad,' if you will - and will completely ignore the issue until it's time to revisit it - AGAIN. Please tell me that isn't what just happened here.
I strongly oppose taxing internet access because history has shown that new taxes, let alone new TYPES of taxes, end up getting bickered over at the state and local levels (read Los Angeles Road Reconstruction). This wastes too much time for more pressing issues: how do we get Kaiser-Permanente to stop homeless patient dumping?
Mayor Villaregosa (sp?) in Los Angeles complained that he didn't get enough money from the state for his freeways while smaller cities got a bigger chunk of it. Oh-woe-is-me. Did he say anything about Kaiser? I haven't seen it.
I'm actually a bit sick of my non-representative politicians not knowing what they do - they're so detached from their responsibilities - and it's pathetic.
stands still taxed twice.
The current gang in Congress ran on a "We're gonna stick to you,
but we hate Bush" platform, and the population said "OK", so I don't
see where anyone (left of center, at least) has room to complain.
when you're allowed to tax it. $25 for the service, $13 for taxes
and "recovery" fees.
I would expect money-hungry States would be chomping at the
bit to squeeze just a little more out of their citizens. This would
just be yet another way to tax, tax, tax.
I would like to see some accountability from all levels of
government for the money they already collect.
Sadly, we are seen as nothing more than sources of money to
our government, whether it is local, state, or federal.
The other commentor is right. the US did vote the Taxaholics into office on the "Bash Bush" platform. most people around here seem to be the type that like that. They shouldn't be complaining about the new taxes we'll get because of it.
They don't listen to the people anymore. Doesn't matter what you or I want.
If the people sit idly by and do nothing while the elitist just keep making their laws, then say that is that and the citizens of the usa are like well ok, then what do you expect but to be railroaded?
I am more concerned with all these laws the govt. keeps passing and most people are not even aware of just exactly what they have done and what they are going to to, then to pay "yet another tax".
Bush just passed a law on May 9th, that puts us as close to living under a dictatorship than we have ever been. But "oh well" what do the American people care? Wake Up People
NO TAXES ON INTERNET ACCESS
Anyone here remember what it was like before the internet? You know...such as finding something in the back of a magazine, and thinking, "Say, I'm gonna buy that." And you ordered it, by phone or snail-mail, from a company that was out-of-state. And you didn't pay sales tax because it was out-of-state? Can someone explain what the difference is, ordering something out-of-state over the phone or mail, and ordering something out-of-state over the internet? I never paid sales tax when ordering out-of-state before; why should I pay now, just from using a different means?
I don't smoke but my wife does and when I buy her a carton of cigarettes we pay an additional $10 vice tax, along with the tobacco tax, and then on top of that sales tax.
If they start taxing internet access it will be the same all over again. There will be an access tax, then they will add a rural access fund surcharge, then they will add sales tax, along with any and all other creative taxes they can think of.
Personally I pay about 25% of my total income to the government(s) now. Let's just cut to the chase and give them all of our paychecks and become a communist country.
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and reverse these trends.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a ?Catastrophic Emergency? the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government.
The language in this directive, some believe, would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
I live in California and we pay sales tax on gasoline purchases (and most other transportation fuels, such as diesel and aviation fuels). According to the State Board of Equalization the average tax amount is 8% (varies by city and county), and the same Board of Equalization reports that about 1.3 billion (yup, BILLION) taxable gallons are sold each month. Now that gas prices are approaching $4.00 per gallon...well you do the math. (Hint: Divide $4.00 by 1.08 and you have the extax price. The difference between the retail price and the extax price is the amount of sales tax.)
Can I please hear again about the poor states that are "losing" billions is sales tax revenue. It's a joke! Maybe they need some of the money for bigger salaries and better perks.
- internet tax
-
by dheurt1
May 23, 2007 11:24 PM PDT
- Please, let's not let the Government get their hands on the Internet. We don't need to have the Internet messed up like they mess everything eles up.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 55 Comments >>