Skip to comments.
Congresswoman goes on offensive over fear of e-mail tax
Knoxnews.com ^
| October 31, 2003
| By RICHARD POWELSON
Posted on 11/04/2003 6:27:25 AM PST by GirlyGirl2003
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
To: paulklenk
I realize you are quoting from the article, but as I said before, the writer of the article got it wrong. No one but an idiot would believe we're going to tax e-mails. Well get ready because there are plans in the works in Texas to tax every email that passes through a server in this state even if neither the sender of receiver are here. The politicians have been waiting for this for at least a year.
21
posted on
11/04/2003 6:47:14 AM PST
by
HoustonCurmudgeon
(PEACE - Through Superior Firepower)
To: HoundsTooth_BP
Right. In the end, it would mean higher rates for internet access.
22
posted on
11/04/2003 6:48:18 AM PST
by
GirlyGirl2003
(ACLU: Anti-Christian Lawyers Union)
To: GirlyGirl2003
While I sincerely doubt that any state or city will be rushing to tax the Internet, the people here scoffing at the idea of taxing e-mails shouldn't be laughing so hard. The idea of putting a per-email tax into law is quitely being discussed as one of the solutions to end spamming. Ideas have ranged from a flat penny per e-mail to a sliding scale, running from nothing for those who e-mail less than five thousand e-mails a year to hundreds of thousands for those who mail millions of e-mails.
Methods of taxation would be centered not on individuals, but on servers that send e-mail. Strange as it sounds, the question of what type of paper and adhesive would be best for placing a tax stamp on servers has been discussed as well.
And you know what? Getting more than 1,500 junk e-mails a day, I'm about ready to start ponying up money for such a tax.
23
posted on
11/04/2003 6:50:33 AM PST
by
kingu
(Just helping...)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
Well get ready because there are plans in the works in Texas to tax every email that passes through a server in this state even if neither the sender of receiver are here. The politicians have been waiting for this for at least a year. Good. The volume of spam alone will pay off the National Debt. Let's see them collect it from spammers...Hahaha!
24
posted on
11/04/2003 6:53:23 AM PST
by
Gorzaloon
(Contents may have settled during shipping, but this tagline contains the stated product weight.)
To: HoustonCurmudgeon
I'm about to post an update to this article. I will place a link here in a moment.
25
posted on
11/04/2003 6:54:53 AM PST
by
GirlyGirl2003
(ACLU: Anti-Christian Lawyers Union)
To: kingu
(And you know what? Getting more than 1,500 junk e-mails a day, I'm about ready to start ponying up money for such a tax)
I don't want to pay any more taxes regardless of junk e-mails.
You must sign up to alot of things, for how do you get so many otherwise?
To: GirlyGirl2003
We already pay quite a premium to get on the internet. The taxes on my telephone bill are always going up. We have the Al Gore tax that they slipped in on us and I doubly hate it.
Besides paying the provider and telephone bill, almost all stores you order from charge their sales tax.
We are already paying a heavy load of tax.
To: HoundsTooth_BP
28
posted on
11/04/2003 7:01:53 AM PST
by
GirlyGirl2003
(ACLU: Anti-Christian Lawyers Union)
To: paulklenk; GirlyGirl2003
No one but an idiot would believe we're going to tax e-mails. I am glad to know that the writer of the article got it wrong. As to the above comment, however, I would assert that "all things are possible."
I, personally, would never underestimate a governmental entity's willingness, nay eargerness, to attempt to separate you and I from our hard-earned income and/or accumulated wealth in any way they possibly can.
I suspect some of the framers of the Federal Constitution may well have said that "No one but an idiot would believe we're going to tax income."
To: GirlyGirl2003
Your post warns of an e-mail tax. How would the tax be levied? How would a count of e-mail passing through servers be measured? How would it be regulated? There are some serious technical issues when it comes to attempting to regulate e-mail.
30
posted on
11/04/2003 7:07:09 AM PST
by
FourPeas
To: paulklenk
No one but an idiot would believe we're going to tax e-mails. "if we pass this income tax, soon we'll be taxing at a 5% rate!"... spoken in the US Senate in 1913.
Never underestimate the hunger gov't has for our money. If there's an opening, some will take advantage...jmho.
To: FourPeas
How? Technically, how could it be done? How would it be monitored/regulated? These are EXACTLY the same questions posed when debating the implementation of a tax on income here in the US. Hence the IRS.
To: paulklenk
You seem to feel so superior to others.
To: paulklenk
I heard this being talked about by a GOP Congressman on Rush last week. I forget who the guest host was. It's not a joke.
The federal ban on internet taxes expired Oct. 31 due to Senate stonewalling. IIRC, Cantwell (D-Wash) Conrad (D-N.D), Voinovich (R-Ohio) and another R were responsible.
34
posted on
11/04/2003 7:12:44 AM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: HoundsTooth_BP
You must sign up to alot of things, for how do you get so many otherwise?
I have my own domain (WHOIS databases are a spammer's wet dream) and my e-mail address dates back to Feb 2, 1996. My other e-mail accounts don't get anywhere near the same level of spam. The domain's account gets 1,500 a day, the other e-mail addresses range from 12-200, depending upon the age of the e-mail address.
And before someone recommends spamkiller or the like, SpamAssassin, running on the server, does filter through a goodly number of them for me. Any other anti-spam program chokes and crashes on the volume.
35
posted on
11/04/2003 7:13:48 AM PST
by
kingu
(Just helping...)
To: GirlyGirl2003
Nice post. Thanks.
36
posted on
11/04/2003 7:14:08 AM PST
by
Tribune7
(It's not like he let his secretary drown in his car or something.)
To: Principled
You seem to have missed my point.
37
posted on
11/04/2003 7:14:11 AM PST
by
FourPeas
To: Tribune7
Thank YOU!
38
posted on
11/04/2003 7:15:26 AM PST
by
GirlyGirl2003
(ACLU: Anti-Christian Lawyers Union)
To: FourPeas
What point do you believe that I missed?
To: Principled
To: paulklenk
"No one but an idiot would believe we're going to tax e-mails."
"if we pass this income tax, soon we'll be taxing at a 5% rate!"... spoken in the US Senate in 1913.
Never underestimate the hunger gov't has for our money. If there's an opening, some will take advantage...jmho.
31 posted on 11/04/2003 9:08 AM CST by Principled
Some actually trust govenment to do the right thing with regards to taxation. You have to wonder how long they've been alive.
40
posted on
11/04/2003 7:18:39 AM PST
by
GirlyGirl2003
(ACLU: Anti-Christian Lawyers Union)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-68 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson