Posted on 11/20/2003 7:40:54 PM PST by LandofLincoln
Some Senator is going to fight to allow states and local governments to tax the internet. This is bullsh*t, when will it stop. I have posted here, many times, I do not mind paying for a good or a service, I do not even mind paying if you enhance a good or service. But, I hate paying government money, as if they are some kind of commission broker, making it happen. We are the most over taxed (in different forms) people in history. Mr Senator from the Northwest thinks that local governments ought not be CHOKED off from that potential revenue. What the f*ck is that.
I like that the Senators in Washington DC are out there fighting for the little guy. Someone taxes every dollar that goes in my hand and then taxes every dollar that leaves my hand. Some are even "equal opportunity" and tax the dollar going both ways.
If people are complaining about the economy now, just watch the $hit hit the fan if this nightmare ever sees the light of day.
It would be a BIG plus for the RATS, and a HUGH slam for Dubya.
Bye-bye economy.
GFOA: "Don't Let Them Take Away Our Ability To Collect Telecommunications Taxes"
Money-grubbing bastards.
|
Heats Up in Senate
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. senator said on Thursday that he would hold up a massive year-end spending bill if it included a ban on Internet-access taxes that he and several colleagues fear would harm state and local finances. Delaware Sen. Thomas Carper, a Democrat, told reporters he would try to keep the omnibus bill from coming to the Senate floor if the ban was included in its present form, which he said infringed on the rights of state and local governments to raise revenues. "If we end up with just an awful ... provision I would certainly object to bringing the omnibus spending bill to the floor and I suspect others will join me," Carper told reporters after a news briefing on the issue. Although Senate rules offer many ways for individual senators to hold up bills they disagree with, it would be hard for Carper to do more than delay the bill for a few days. |
|
Colleagues said they hoped to reach a deal with lawmakers on the other side of the issue before matters reached a head.
|
|
The ban is meant to replace a 1998 moratorium that kept state and local government from imposing taxes on the monthly fees Internet providers such as EarthLink Inc (ELNK). charge their customers. The moratorium expired on Nov. 1.
|
|
As written, the replacement measure would permanently ban those taxes as well as taxes on high-speed cable and DSL services not covered under the original moratorium.
|
|
The new version, which cleared the House of Representatives in September, would also eliminate access taxes that were in place in some states before 1998. Senate leaders brought the bill to the floor several weeks ago but pulled it back after it became apparent the measure might not pass easily.
|
|
BROADLY WORDED BILL
|
|
State and local governments fear the legislation is worded so broadly that it would restrict them from collecting all manner of other taxes on the telecommunications industry.
|
|
They say it could cost them as much as $9 billion in tax revenues a year by 2006 as phone calls, music sales and other activities migrate to the Internet.
|
|
The Congressional Budget Office estimates these jurisdictions would lose $195 million that year but said the true cost of the provision could not be determined and could be much higher.
|
|
Calling the ban proposal an unfunded mandate on states and a massive tax break for the telecommunications industry, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee said he and his colleagues had proposed a compromise two-year ban.
|
|
The compromise would ban access taxes both on DSL and in states previously allowed to tax Internet access services.
|
|
He said there was also a chance that the two sides could simply agree to extending the terms of the expired moratorium for a few months while they agreed on what should come afterward.
|
|
But Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, whose state boasts a large high-tech business community and who supports the permanent ban proposal, said he could not accept an extension either for a few months or two years.
|
|
"Senator Allen does not believe a two-year extension provides either consumers or businesses with adequate stability to plan future significant buildout of broadband," his spokesman said, adding that Allen's goal was to keep industry costs down to make Internet access affordable for all.
|
|
A spokeswoman for Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, said Wyden was similarly unmoved by proposals presented thus far. Extension of the terms of the previous ban simply gave states more time to institute new taxes on the Internet, she said.
|
Wanna know why the gubmint ALLOWS unchallenged, unhindered, and unmanageable numbers of illegal aliens to pour into this nation? Those are just workers brought in to generate tax to support social security for the baby boomers and replace the FORTY-FIVE MILLION AMERICANS ABORTED OVER THE PAST THIRTY YEARS.
No big deal.
Oh Democrats, please bring this to the floor. I can't wait to see the end of your party.
Maybe instead of writing our senators, we should write Bush, urging him to exercize his right to sign an executive order?
November 3, 2003
Dear Dennis and Gail,
I want to be clear. I am not advocating taxes on the Internet or anything else, and I adamantly oppose taxes on e-mails.
I want to be clear about my position on this issue. I am saying that Congress should not decide how Tennessee collects revenue. I'm a conservative and believe in small government, and I think the federal government needs to keep its nose out of state business. I have always believed that these decisions are best made on the state and local level, not here in Washington. Our state elected leaders should be able to decide what Tennessee's tax structure should look like. Should taxes on food and medicine be raised, or should the tax on our Internet service continue? Those are the kinds of decisions the governor, the state legislature, and the people of Tennessee should have the authority to make - not politicians in Washington.
I also want to be clear that in Tennessee, your Internet service is currently being taxed, but not your individual e-mails. I oppose the moratorium because the federal government should not tell the state how to run its business.
How Tennessee collects money is not a decision Congress should make. Congress has no business taking away what the state estimates to be more than $300 million in revenue from Tennessee, which could result if the proposed legislation passes.
Sincerely,
Lamar
BULLCRAP, we can throw all the tea in the harbor
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.