If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(C|Net)   Tax? On my internet access? Its more likely than you think   (news.com.com) divider line 44
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

2278 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 May 2007 at 9:51 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2007-05-24 08:25:55 AM
You may not like it, but the Fed has no business legislating this crap. If your state wants to impose an access tax - and you are stupid enough to LET them - then taxed you deserve to be.
 
2007-05-24 09:05:54 AM
Our state government upped sales tax a full percentage point 18 months ago WITHOUT public referendum...so by the time any outrage was created, it was too late.

Some parts of the state pay 10% sales tax...and that includes food and OTC medicine, too. "Fark the poor people," I suppose. Relative to that, the web is a luxury good.
 
2007-05-24 09:58:01 AM
Thank goodness I live in a liberal stronghold with no sales taxes.

// Suck it conservatives
 
2007-05-24 10:00:26 AM
Long live the UK's 17.5% VAT...

/You'll get over it
 
2007-05-24 10:05:28 AM
MisterRPG

how you liking that STATE income tax?
 
2007-05-24 10:17:46 AM
MisterRPG: Thank goodness I live in a liberal stronghold with no sales taxes.

If I have my way, that will change; the only taxes you'll pay will be sales tax.
 
2007-05-24 10:21:34 AM
Giblet: "If I have my way, that will change; the only taxes you'll pay will be sales tax"

I'm hoping you mean on the federal level.

/would like April 15th to just be another spring day
 
2007-05-24 10:22:48 AM
How exactly do you go about enforcing a tax on the internet? Are they taxing my hook-up or actual online purchases?

/RTFA
//seriously, I'll just buy it from Russia
 
2007-05-24 10:25:57 AM
L.B. Jeffries: "How exactly do you go about enforcing a tax on the internet? Are they taxing my hook-up or actual online purchases?"

I would think they would do it through your carrier.

How would you go about getting service other than connecting via phone or cable?

/uplink downlink would probably get controlled too some way
 
2007-05-24 10:29:58 AM
And you all laughed at the militas in South Dakota. Seriously, they're the only sane ones around anymore.

/stop legislating my habits
//this means local, state, and federal
 
2007-05-24 10:56:52 AM
When was slavery outlawed again?

Oh right. Never. It's just an illusion of democracy.
 
2007-05-24 10:59:56 AM
The state takes 3.6% of what I earn. It's really killing me, MoreCowbell!. Especially after the feds take their 21%.
 
2007-05-24 11:07:52 AM
THE HouseCat: I'm hoping you mean on the federal level.

No. We can eliminate Federal taxation altogether. Let the states pony up (eg, 10% of state tax revenues) for the Federal budget. You have to reduce the Federal budget, of course, to Military, miscellaneous government expenses (diplomatic, office expenses, etc), and a handful special departments (intell, standards, and commerce).

There's no reason why we should pay a Federal tax and there's no reason we should be taxed until we spend income. That model encourages savings and thrift, which strengthens economies in a better manner than the current one, which is to simply print more worthless money.

In other words, turn this whole broken system on its ear and put it back the way it was when it still worked OK, and tweak it from there.
 
2007-05-24 11:48:26 AM
MisterRPG: Especially after the feds take their 21%.

21%!!! That means you're still eligible for some of the credits and deductions! What are you complaining about?

I get socked for 28% and get no breaks on anything. Then the state wants a taste.

21%... That means I pay more taxes than you net.

My vote should count more than your vote does and I should get to stand in the shorter, more elegant, "Gold Member" line at the post office!
 
2007-05-24 11:52:29 AM
I will gladly pay tax on Internet service, in exchange for:

No Spam
No Domain Squatting
No Censorship
No DRM
 
2007-05-24 11:53:31 AM
Giblet: There's no reason why we should pay a Federal tax and there's no reason we should be taxed until we spend income. That model encourages savings and thrift, which strengthens economies in a better manner than the current one, which is to simply print more worthless money.

Actually saving money hurts the economy. If everyone is saving money banks can lend it out to companies who can't get customers because everyone is saving their money. You have to have a nice balance.
 
2007-05-24 11:56:36 AM
What the hell? I'm not complaining about anything, Giblet

21%... That means I pay more taxes than you net.

Fail.
 
2007-05-24 11:59:00 AM
fark.brescher.net
 
2007-05-24 12:39:26 PM
We'll get over it.
 
2007-05-24 12:50:39 PM
dedekind_cut
I will not be able to sleep tonight. Thanks.
 
2007-05-24 01:11:31 PM
dedekind_cut blarg?
 
2007-05-24 01:27:38 PM
MisterRPG: Fail.

You apparently don't know what it takes to be in the 28% bracket with no tax perks.

And I'm not giving you grief...I'm just using your complaint to help help voice frustration that our tax system is so damn unfair. It punishes hard work and success while rewarding laziness and incompetence.

dedekind_cut:

That's giving me daymares. You're going to put someone's eye out with that.

MisterRPG:What the hell? I'm not complaining about anything, Giblet

Flashback time: "It's really killing me, MoreCowbell!."
 
2007-05-24 01:27:41 PM
Giblet: You may not like it, but the Fed has no business legislating this crap.

I'm pretty sure that commercial internet access falls under the Interstate Commerce clause.
 
2007-05-24 01:34:54 PM
Giblet: It punishes hard work and success while rewarding laziness and incompetence.

So a construction worker working 16 hour days is lazy and incompetent, and Paris Hilton is successful and hard working?
 
2007-05-24 01:45:00 PM
MWeather: I'm pretty sure that commercial internet access falls under the Interstate Commerce clause.

But it's certain states that want that tax. It's their problem on how they can impose it. Why should the Fed intervene?

Too many people think the Fed should manage everything in this country. That's why nothing works -- the Fed is too big and can no longer adapt to national or world changes. It fosters corruption and makes it easy to hide corruption in the fetid cheese between the lumpy layers of bureaucracy.

I suspect such people just want their mommy back so they have someone to tell them what to do, how it is to be done, and protect them from their scary shadows.
 
2007-05-24 01:53:21 PM
Giblet

Flashbacks? No thanks, not since that time I cracked my back.

The state takes 3.6% of what I earn. It's really killing me, MoreCowbell!. Especially after the feds take their 21%.

The feds take 21% but what's killing me is when the state takes 3.6%? Once you're done wiping your ass with huge piles of money, why not buy a sarcasm detector?

You apparently don't know what it takes to be in the 28% bracket

77K, according to some numbers that just flew out of google's ass. Fail. I'm not giving you trouble either. Just sayin'.
 
2007-05-24 01:54:25 PM
Giblet: 21%!!! That means you're still eligible for some of the credits and deductions! What are you complaining about?

I get socked for 28% and get no breaks on anything. Then the state wants a taste.

21%... That means I pay more taxes than you net.

My vote should count more than your vote does and I should get to stand in the shorter, more elegant, "Gold Member" line at the post office!


You already benefit more from the capitalist system than he does. STFU & enjoy it.
 
2007-05-24 02:00:53 PM
Please help me by giving me tips on how to clean my suede shoes.
 
2007-05-24 02:23:18 PM
MWeather: So a construction worker working 16 hour days is lazy and incompetent

It's likely. Look up the definition for the root word of incompetence. If construction labor were more valuable than RF chip design, within our society, then construction labor would pay more than RF chip design. "Success is all about competent performance *and* hard work.

Your question is a classic example of the type of rhetoric that socialists employ to justify a slothful nature eg, every 10th-anniversary-McDonald's employee, or more commonly, to advance their own corrupt or unethical socio-political goals eg, Sharpton, Clinton, ad nauseum.

I grew up in the heart of a black ghetto and I'm a high school dropout. Many liberals would forgive me if I were "gettin' dat gubmint check" because I was so "under privileged" or some similar horse crap. But no, I'm competitive (competent), I work hard and, because of the layabout-enablers in the US, I have to pay a higher percentage of my income in taxes than a career fry cook.

This happens in a country where all men are supposedly equal. Well, if we're so damned equal, then why do I have to pay a higher percentage of my income than almost everyone else?

Either the current taxation model is unfair, or we aren't equals. I don't see any third possibility in this mess.
 
2007-05-24 02:30:27 PM
Program User: You already benefit more from the capitalist system than he does. STFU & enjoy it.

Why stop there?

You have a better TV than mine. I'll be over to collect it around 6PM.

Your neatly-trimmed lawn is nicer than my weed-pile. This court order says I can move my picnic table into a substantial fraction of your (formerly) yard.

I hope you condone these scenarios because that is the crap you're selling.
 
2007-05-24 02:31:02 PM
This happens in a country where all men are supposedly equal. Well, if we're so damned equal, then why do I have to pay a higher percentage of my income than almost everyone else?

Either the current taxation model is unfair, or we aren't equals. I don't see any third possibility in this mess.


It's interesting you say that because if we switch to an all sales tax system as you suggest earlier, those who are unfortuante enough to be living check to check will be paying taxes on 100% of their income, whereas we would be paying taxes on a fraction of our income.
 
2007-05-24 03:13:09 PM
MisterRPG: It's interesting you say that because if we switch to an all sales tax system as you suggest earlier, those who are unfortuante enough to be living check to check will be paying taxes on 100% of their income, whereas we would be paying taxes on a fraction of our income.

No income taxes. It's sales tax.

Most states charge no sales tax on the necessities of existence; food, shelter (incl heating), and sometimes, even clothing. All the sales-tax-only arguments I've heard and read are clear about not taxing existential commodities, for that very reason.

If the paycheck-to-paycheck guy is spending that paycheck on video rentals, beer, and hookers, then yes; he'll be taxed on 100% of what he makes.

If he's buying only the basics, he's paying no taxes at all.

Everyone wins.
 
2007-05-24 03:15:35 PM
Fair enough.

// I don't have sales tax, so I'm not entirely sure how it works.
 
2007-05-24 03:46:08 PM
Okay, for years people knew the sales tax was coming. Few people were being honest and reporting the items bought over the net. If people reported their purchases honestly this would be a non-issue.

I can even understand a tax on the service itself (sales tax), which a Republican governor instituted, in this state. I don't like it, but hey, I can understand it.

Anything else, sheer stupidity.

Giblet: No income taxes. It's sales tax.

If he's buying only the basics, he's paying no taxes at all.


Now who decides what a necessity or "basics" are? I mean really, how many people own a cell-phone today instead of a land-line. I'm wagering most people would toss that in the "luxury" category. Is gasoline going to be taxed more? It's an essential, but it's still taxed heavily by state and local. What happens when other funding sources slowly dry up (as is the case in tobacco) and you have to go looking for new funding initiatives?

Sales tax proposals are fine until you realize that it's just as inherently unfair as any other tax system you can come up with. In fact it can quickly become more so because someone will argue that some items in the list shouldn't be and other should be. You'd end up no better, and possibly worse, than the mess we have now.

Simplest way to fix taxes:

1) Calculate the revenue "gained" from killing all exemptions (kids, mortgage interest, investment losses, amortization, et al)

2) Kill all exemptions/lower taxes

3) Make exemptions illegal

4) Require all funding bills to be single issue funding bills (ie a road bill only deals with roads, not banking rules, peanut production, or export laws.

It's quite possible that people making less than 40k a year (for a family of four) might not pay any taxes other than SSI and UI. That's fine, because it was pretty much that way before...

Don't whine to me about fair. All tax systems are inherently unfair. Flat tax systems are unfair to the poor. Sales tax systems inevitably are unfair to the lower middle. Progressive tax systems are unfair to the top. The question s become: 1) Who has more to lose should the country experience anarchy or military disaster? 2) Who can really afford to pay to ensure that #1 doesn't happen?

It's not nice, and it's not fair. I will probably always pay more taxes than most of the parents I know from the kid's school. I do, however, have much more to lose than most of them.
 
2007-05-24 03:53:14 PM
MWeather: So a construction worker working 16 hour days is lazy and incompetent, and Paris Hilton is successful and hard working?

Apples & oranges. I can't really improve upon Giblet's explanation of "competence" regarding the construction worker:

Giblet: It's likely. Look up the definition for the root word of incompetence. If construction labor were more valuable than RF chip design, within our society, then construction labor would pay more than RF chip design. "Success is all about competent performance *and* hard work.

But Paris Hilton did not earn her money. That's not really a fair comparison. Her DAD on the other hand DID earn HIS money and he may do with it as he wishes... and if you had his kind of money, you'd probably make sure your family lived comfortably too. And you can bet your commie pinko ass he pays more taxes on it in a year than you've earned your whole life (maybe).
 
2007-05-24 03:58:24 PM
Now who decides what a necessity or "basics" are? I mean really, how many people own a cell-phone today instead of a land-line. I'm wagering most people would toss that in the "luxury" category. Is gasoline going to be taxed more? It's an essential, but it's still taxed heavily by state and local. What happens when other funding sources slowly dry up (as is the case in tobacco) and you have to go looking for new funding initiatives?

It's pretty simple.

Premium Gas....essential.
Bus Pass.....luxury.

Mortgage...essential.
Rent...luxury.

Roast Chicken...essential.
Fried Chicken...luxury.
 
2007-05-24 04:10:00 PM
inglixthemad: Now who decides what a necessity or "basics" are?

Your state legislature would determine that, just like right now. You know, that guy that keeps running, unchallenged, every election. Well, maybe that should be you, if you better represent the people in your district.

Almost every state excludes groceries and housing from state income taxes. If you're in a state that taxes groceries (not dining - that's different), you should be asking your state legislature why.

My original point is that sales tax is more fair than income tax and that your state is better equipped to balance your basic necessities against your state's revenue requirements than is the Federal government -- who will tax you whether you are wealthy or starving in your wheelchair with your hungry triplets at your shriveled teat.

I also suspect I would have more luck trying to change my taxation through state channels than through federal channels.
 
2007-05-24 04:45:16 PM
Di Atribe: But Paris Hilton did not earn her money.

She (and yes, even the kinda bucks she earns through investing and interest) is insignificant. She's an anomaly. With crabs probably. Forget her. It will never work out, Di.

Even Bill Gates' $3B or so annual income is nothing compared to the US GDP. Gates couldn't possibly fund the first half of Q-3 in Iraq, even if he went all-out broke and pulled an MS with him in the trying.

No, the real money in America is in the middle-class's pocket. We middle-class types pay the highest taxes and fund most of what the monkeys in Washington attempt. No, that's NOT fair but the middle-class is not a statistical majority of the population, so *federal* legislation is not likely to favor anyone but the poor (through legislation) and the rich (through cronyism). Besides, favoring *anyone*, with regards to taxation, is unfair, and violates the most basic premise of our Constitution.

There are other answers too. Flat-tax has its own advantages and disadvantages (the biggest one being that the fed controls flat taxation in most architect's models).

Personally, I believe the federal government has farked things up enough, possibly beyond repair, and a serious shakeup is needed; move taxation to the states and the fed gets enough of a taste to keep our military and diplomatic forces strong, keep our National Parks cleared of pesky animals, and keep our interstate highways in good, rage-worthy, condition. Without borrowing money to do it.
 
2007-05-24 04:47:20 PM
dedekind_cut

You absolute bastard. I saw that at work and I just started cracking up. I had to go outside for 15 minutes to stop chuckling at that.
 
2007-05-24 05:26:13 PM
Giblet: She (and yes, even the kinda bucks she earns through investing and interest) is insignificant. She's an anomaly. With crabs probably. Forget her. It will never work out, Di.


First of all, I'm not a lesbian and even if I were... uh... she would be, how do you say... "not my type."

Second of all, I was agreeing with you, stupidface. For the most part anyway. I just mostly wanted to point out that bringing up spoiled rich kids who inherited their gobs of money is completely irrelevant to a conversation such as this. You just happened to say it all nice and smart and stuff (damn you).

Tertiary, eventually, there will need to be a tax on the intarwebs ESPECIALLY as it becomes our preferred means of communication. The guy in the article had a great point about taxing people as they enter a mall or library, though.
 
2007-05-24 11:45:16 PM
Di Atribe: First of all, I'm not a lesbian and even if I were... uh... she would be, how do you say... "not my type."

You shouldn't speak in absolutes, nor should you make snap decisions that way. Anyway, further discussion of the subtopic is useless without pictures, slideshows, and appropriate simulations.
 
2007-05-25 07:11:11 AM
We already tried the "Feds get all their income from states, no federal taxes." If I remember correctly that idea was hampered by the fact that the states did not want to give any money at all. If the states refuse to give the feds their taste, the feds won't be able to fund the military to force the states to give them the money. And if the military is the only way the feds have to actually get money in the first place, doesn't that move them from the metaphoric robber camp to the actual robber camp?
 
2007-05-25 05:55:54 PM
MortuusLupus: doesn't that move them from the metaphoric robber camp to the actual robber camp?

I dunno. How about this:
If a state doesn't pony-up, that state's land-mass is divided equally between all adjacent states, with property rights remaining with the current deed holder in their new state.

You were thinking Texas, weren't you.

Texas would be absorbed by Louisiana, New Mexico, etc. Their state capitol building will be sold at auction by the LA governor and it will be Galveston, Louisiana, Midland, New Mexico, and Dallas, OK from now on. How embarassing.

/Ha ha.
 
2007-05-26 03:02:10 AM
I work for the Dept of Revenue for a particular state..lol..and those that buy cigarettes over the net get a nice letter requesting them to pay the taxes due. Of course most sites selling those cigarettes dont make it abundantly clear that taxes may be enforced. Love speaking to those fools. Just an FYI..Did I just threadjack? If so I apologize.

/internet already taxed....i pay it every month with my cable company.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report