The Internet Tax Grab

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, October 21, 2003

[TroutStalker]

Just as Congress is poised to make the temporary ban on taxing Internet access permanent, some politicians are using the occasion to stage a revenue gold rush by pushing for an Internet sales tax. We can't think of a better way to handicap a technology with uses the world is just beginning to understand.

[thinktwice]

What's been keeping the tax man's hand out of this cookie jar thus far is a long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Most recently in its 1992 Quill decision, the Court held that the nation's 7,600 tax jurisdictions could impose tax-collection burdens only on companies with a nexus in the taxing jurisdiction.

A One World taxing agency means the ultimate destruction of human freedom.

[unixfox]

Before a Congress under GOP control extends any more taxing authority to the states, it might consider that the underlying problem is overspending, not lack of revenue.

(((((( HOLDING BREATH )))))

[G.Mason]

"A One World taxing agency means the ultimate destruction of human freedom."

Not at all.

I will simply put minds to work thinking of, and developing ways to yank off the yoke!

[lewislynn]

Tax simplification would certainly be welcome, but granting local officials open-ended tax authority over interstate commerce looks like the first step toward a national sales tax. Having witnessed the economic damage caused by value-added taxes in Europe, we're not eager to see it duplicated here.

NST shills will tell you it isn't a VAT (yet) but the NST proposals DO tax other taxes, fees etc. imposed before it...The NST propsals are a tax "of the gross payments including federal taxes"...

[szweig]

Life would be so much simpler if these governmental c*cks*ckers would CUT THEIR SPENDING!! Then they would not always be in search of new "revenue enhancers".

[Paul C. Jesup]

We can't think of a better way to handicap a technology with uses the world is just beginning to understand.

Actually the RIAA/MPAA puppets at the FCC want to cripple technology.

[thinktwice]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -- Unknown?

[G.Mason]

"The power to tax is the power to destroy." -- Unknown?"

He/ she was "unknown" as they had an inherent fear of the IRS. LOL

Pay ALL your taxes, do you?

[demlosers]

Not going to happen...

[camas]

if a tax on the sales is say 10% i bet the price will go up 10% with less then 1% going to the taxer. hell they can't even stop spam how do they think they can collect the sales tax.

[Pagey]

Tax simplification would certainly be welcome, but granting local officials open-ended tax authority over interstate commerce looks like the first step toward a national sales tax. Having witnessed the economic damage caused by value-added taxes in Europe, we're not eager to see it duplicated here.

A Big Fat BUMP to those 2 sentences!

[CSM]

Danny,

Would you support this elimination of the free cybermarket?

[SheLion]

A One World taxing agency means the ultimate destruction of human freedom.

This is impossible. The whole world uses the Net. How in the world do our lawmakers think they can even BEGIN to collect taxes from people overseas. This is a Star Wars Invention.

[SheLion]

Would you support this elimination of the free cybermarket?

This is BS. Someone dreamed this up one night when they were smoking crack!

Just like the lawmakers want to tax the sale of cigarettes sold online: "I" say then they better start with the online Auctions first! This stuff is getting out of hand. I wish we could clean out the House and Senate and start over. These guys are smoking dope. Or else they are taking too much Viagra........most of them are old jerk-offs anyway.

[DannyTN]

"Would you support this elimination of the free cybermarket? "

No, at least not at this time.

First, the internet technology is still developing and it represents a great productivity boost. Government should supplement this technology and the Fed's prohibiting taxes does that.

Second, how to tax it is problematic. If the transaction is considered to occur at the seller's location, seller's of any substantial volume will quickly locate to the lowest tax zones in the country. If the transaction is considered to occur at the buyer's location, then both the tax calculation which presumably would include both state and local taxes, as well as enforcement are difficult. If and when it is taxed, the Federal Government will have to set the rules.

Third, I'm not in favor of giving government more taxes. They need to manage what they get now better.

[CSM]

I am amazed that you can walk with one foot on each side of this issue. You say you don't support taxes at this time, implying that at some time it may be appropriate. Then you say that the internet is a great productivity tool and the government should supplement the technology. By not taxing it the government does that. What, a lack of government taxing is a form of government supplementation? You don't give enough credit to the private sector and you give to much credit to the government. Then you go on a discussion on the difficulty of accomplishing the tax, like you would be searching for a solution, then you say you are against taxing it at all. At one point you even say "If and when it is taxed", if and when are not interchangeable, they have different meanings.

I appreciate your third point, but you waffle on the wrong side to much.

[DannyTN]

"What, a lack of government taxing is a form of government supplementation? "

Only relative to bricks and mortar commerce. Your right, lack of taxing isn't supplementation but only in the relative sense.

I'm not completely anti-tax. We need some government. We might have too much now, but we can't eliminate the whole thing. So the question becomes what you tax and when. I'm not in favor of taxing the internet now, because it's an important technology and the US needs to be at the forefront of it.

There may come a time when it should be taxed. For example, lets say the internet has matured and lack of taxation no longer achieves any comparative advantage relative to other countries. And to spice it up, let's say a proposal is before congress to eliminate the income tax in favor of consumption taxes of which the internet tax is one. What then? Would you be willing to tax it then?

[DannyTN]

PS. Leave primary food alone, but should eating second hand food in public ever become even slightly common, it should definitely be banned.

What you eat in complete privacy is your business. But I think eating second had food should constitute grounds for divorce. And while I'm not a fan of child safety services given some of their outrageous attempts to take kids away from parents for minor things, if the parent is eating second hand food, this is one case where child safety services ought to look real hard at whether the children are safe.

I hate it when a promising thread gets Zotted before I even get to read it.

[CSM]

Eating second hand food isn't the danger, it is the smelling of second hand food(gas).

You have convinced me that at some point a tax on the internet may be valid, considering lowering of other taxes. However, I would be more speculative than you could imagine and the appropriate reductions in other taxes would have to be in place before I would think it is right.


With regards to a technology lag (if I understood your point) or some other lag that a tax could help, I would have to disagree. If the tool no longer is as useful or productive as it once was, then most likely it is currently being replaced by another more productive and advanced tool. If a tax were used to prop it up, we would slow technological advances.