Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Congress Plans to Tax the Internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Stop_the_War Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:08 AM
Original message
Congress Plans to Tax the Internet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
henrik larssonisking Donating Member (211 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. hopefully not the britney spears site
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. damn Liberals.. RepugNuts wouldnt do that.. Clinton did it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. funky link.. havent got time to find anything there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pam-Moby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. They just keep searching for new items that can be taxed
so that they obtain more money for bush to spend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
5. Hatch and Rangel are on the committee
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 12:17 AM by ultraist
snips
"It lists three different telecommunications tax options, one of which would cover all data communications. A second choice would extend the excise tax to cell phones and perhaps VoIP. The third would clearly levy the charge on VoIP, including Internet-only phone calls using services such as Skype that do not touch the public telephone network. "It is not necessary that the voice communications service provide" that capability, the report says.

James Maule, who teaches tax law at Villanova University and edits a related blog, said the more extreme taxation option may be a way for committee members to make the others "look a bit more palatable. There's some psychology going on."

"The odds of something happening in 2005 that amends the tax law is extremely high," Maule said, referring to President Bush's promise to revise the tax code. "I suspect that (one of these options) is going to be tacked on."

A few years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to repeal the excise tax, but the Senate never acted on the measure.

Members of the Joint Committee on Taxation include Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; John Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; and representatives Bill Thomas, R-Calif.; and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. "

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:13 AM
Response to Original message
6. Something tells me this ain't
Edited on Sat Jan-29-05 12:15 AM by liberalhistorian
gonna go over too well, nor should it. Congress needs to leave the Internet the hell alone; I don't think the majority of internet users are going to put up with that. They'll just ignore it, like a lot of people ignore paying state taxes on interstate internet purchases. What the hell is Congress going to do, try to come after a hundred million Americans?

And what's up with this, anyway? The Dems on the panel should know better, and I thought Republicans were supposed to be against taxes and against the implementation of any new taxes? Guess they have to find some way to pay for the exorbitant tax-cut gift to the wealthy while continuing to shift more and more of the burden to us little guys. And that goes for Dems doing that, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purple Clematis Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Pork
They list it as an 'option'. The committee is half & half, and neither party is familiar with spending limitations.

The so-called Congress is 'entertaining' this 'option' because the state budgets are in the tank.

Any Congress-person who will support this initiative better be elected in 2004 with intentions of retiring. The blogosphere will revolt and the politicians will be fearful.

They don't dare support this crap if they want to be re-elected. This will be a bigger issue than the war in Iraq or Social Security.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RawMaterials Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
7. quote from the story
"Congress enacted the so-called "luxury" excise tax at 1 cent a phone call to pay for the Spanish American War back in 1898, when only a few thousand phone lines existed in the country. It was repealed in 1902, but was reimposed at 1 cent a call in 1914 to pay for World War I and eventually became permanent at a rate of 3 percent in 1990."

this is such b*shit hidden taxation evereywere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. That's for sure!
And while republicans love to hate taxes, they're just as responsible for their proliferation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ultraist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. It will likely pass
"Currently, the 3 percent excise tax applies only to traditional telephone service. But because of technological convergence and the dropping popularity of landlines, the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded in its review of tax law reforms that it might make sense to extend the 100-year old levy to new technologies. The committee did not take a position on whether Congress should approve such an extension and simply listed it as an option..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 12:33 AM
Response to Original message
10. we already pay a series of taxes
You pay telecommunications taxes to ISPs. We also pay sales tax on goods we purchase online. I'm not going to get exercised if we have to pay an extra 3% tax on the ISP. I'm not a tax dodging Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Purple Clematis Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Like you have a choice ...
Like you have a choice not to pay those taxes.

Of course, you can choose not to pay, but then you lose your service. It's not exactly a martyr type of situation.

And maybe you can afford to pay more taxes without question, but some of us can't. Do you want to deny the "have nots" internet access? Will that lead our public libraries to charge for using the internet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imenja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Bush's tax cuts
I didn't say anything about not paying taxes, so I'm not sure where that point of yours comes from. Frankly, I'm far more concerned about the Bush administration's use of our tax dollars to provide subsidize corporations and wealthy Americans. Taxes on INTERNET, which will total a couple of dollars a month, are far less of a concern that increases in college tuition and local property taxes because of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. I think your outrage on what is comparatively minor tax compared to huge increases elsewhere is misplaced.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hector459 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
14. If this happens, and I hope it doesn't, we need a new mantra:
"Lower taxes for the wealthy, higher fees for the rest of us!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-29-05 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Actually, that's already
the case, much as both parties refuse to admit it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 12:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC