US House Passes Permanent Ban On Internet Access Taxes 148
jfruh writes: In 1998, the U.S. Congress passed a law that temporarily banned all taxes imposed by federal, state, and local governments on Internet access and Internet-only services, a ban that has been faithfully renewed every year since. Now the U.S. House has passed a passed a permanent version of the ban, which also applies to several states that had passed Internet taxes before 1998 and were grandfathered in under the temporary law. The Senate must pass the bill as well by November 1 or the temporary ban will lapse.
How about fees? (Score:1)
Could they tack a rider onto that sucker mandating out-the-door advertised prices while they're at it?
Re: (Score:1)
... it was renewed reliably year after year since 1998...
If the ringing in my ears from the "nancy pelosi" whinging that happened a few back is anything to go by, it's a bi-partisan issue.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a voice vote.
This will die in the senate (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll never pass up an opportunity to squeeze more money to fund pet projects back home. Hell, they're already talking about tapping the untouched potential of my 401(k).
Re: (Score:2)
They'll never pass up an opportunity to squeeze more money to fund pet projects back home. Hell, they're already talking about tapping the untouched potential of my 401(k).
My guess is they may simply because they may not want to face a "Sen XX voted to raise taxes..." ad back home.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll never pass up an opportunity to squeeze more money to fund pet projects back home. Hell, they're already talking about tapping the untouched potential of my 401(k).
Do you pay taxes on services. Get the car repaired and pay for labour and taxes? In most parts of the world, labor is value added and is therefore taxed. Are your phone services taxed?
Re: (Score:2)
Back then, though, the drop-dead date was usually the modern retirement age; so yeah, it could be pushed back a little bit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This will die in the senate (Score:4, Informative)
no, it wasn't. If you live through your tax paying year to 60, it was very likely you would live just as long as you would now.
Male - 1940 would live 13 years after turning 60
Male - Now live 15.5 years after turning 60.
So it a couple of years, easily adjusted for and planned for. Don't by into the pub/libertarians lies. SS is fine.
In fact, with a minor change, we could lower the age of retirement, I know, it's counter intuitive and requires math.
Really we nee congress to stop stealing the money from SS the we pay into.
Re: (Score:2)
According to SSA, once you make it to 65 (which is when many chose to retire), your chances of making it past 80 go wayyyyy up!!!!
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/li... [ssa.gov]
I use to work in life insurance, trust me, your facts are wrong. Social Security is not fine. It needs much more than a minor change. This is due to Social Security being dumped into congresses budget. Meaning when the government gets all the Social Security tax money in, it pays out what it needs to, and then takes the rest and spends it. Ev
Re:This will die in the senate (Score:4, Interesting)
In truth, this is also why Social Security has its problems. When it was established, it was "You likely won't live to use it, but if you do, you will be well taken care of". It was insurance against an uncommon and, in a way, kind of negative thing happening to you: Living to an age such that you could no longer support yourself. It was a luxury that not many people had, and it could absolutely be hard on your family. Of course, now almost everyone lives long enough to collect it.
No, it wasn't meant to be a replacement for savings, and you weren't supposed to get out what you put in. A small portion of the population was supposed to collect it, because most of them didn't live long enough to.
Re:This will die in the senate (Score:4, Informative)
Social security was absolutely meant as a replacement for savings. It just didn't mandate away the ability to save money independently from paying social security. Savings is personal financial security with sole benefit, Social security is community financial security with a shared benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
But only so long as the Ponzi Scheme was working. The real benefits were to the DNC and politicians in general who now have a wedge issue to divide the over 65 crowd from the under 45 crowd. Divide and conquer. People are too stupid to recognize it because .... FIFA BITING CHAMPIONSHIP!!!!
Re:This will die in the senate (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a Ponzi scheme. I suggest you do some research instead of letting fox think for you.
THE problem is congress keeps taking money from it.
Re: (Score:3)
The money that has been taken has been backed with T-bills. Financially, it's as if the money was never taken out in the first place. Nevertheless, Social Security is now running in the red (drawing down on those T-bills) and will continue to do so until it's out of cash sometime in the next 20-25 years. Thus the talk about raising the tax rate, or lifting other exemptions (without raising the equivalent max benefit), or other means to increase funding without increasing expenses.
Social security is, in f
Re: (Score:3)
It does meet every defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, however because it is government sanctioned it technically isn't one. Right now we're seeing the sunset of what a Ponzi scheme looks like; that is, where it fails because the new investors aren't paying enough to cover the dividends paid to the older investors.
I personally don't get why we don't just get rid of it in favor of a universal pension system.
Re: (Score:1)
The first generation that received social security was paid by the working generation (2nd generation). The 2nd generation is paid for by the 3rd generation and so on. It only works as long as the next generation (new investors) grows fast enough to pay for the current generation. This is classic Ponzi scheme, the first investers get paid off right away (and well), and the second investers pay for them and they get paid less well, and then the 3
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how social security is not a Ponzi scheme?
The first generation that received social security was paid by the working generation (2nd generation). The 2nd generation is paid for by the 3rd generation and so on. It only works as long as the next generation (new investors) grows fast enough to pay for the current generation. This is classic Ponzi scheme, the first investers get paid off right away (and well), and the second investers pay for them and they get paid less well, and then the 3rd generation get paid even less, and so on, and you can only sustain it if you get more investors or you actually generate income. Unless I am mistaken, the only income social security gets is from the current investors.
Well, you're basically right, though there had been moves to put the system on a more rational footing, such as the resolution of the 1983 Social Security crisis, which was supposed to create a permanent "trust fund" that anticipated the retirement of the Baby Boomers and was supposed to save money in advance for that. (For a long, but relatively balanced account, see here [dissidentvoice.org].)
Unfortunately, very shortly after Reagan and Congress negotiated this deal, they decided just to throw the newly collected funds int
Re: (Score:2)
For one thing, Ponzi schemes blow up eventually. There aren't enough new investors to pay the older investors off. In this case, generation N's retirement is paid for by generation N+1, so there's always new investors. The first generation lucked out, since there wasn't a zeroth generation to pay for, but it's gotten more or less stable (more or less depending on your predictions of what inflation does, overall interest rates do, what future birth rates are, and what Congress does).
A Ponzi scheme has
Re: (Score:3)
It's STILL easier to fix if we do something now, rather than waiting, but it seems destined to remain yet another example of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that people didn't live long lives, it is that the average or median age of death was lower. Of course social security was implemented in 1935 not 1800, but the numbers may actually surprise you.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/... [infoplease.com]
That should give you some interesting comparisons.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how I made it sound anything of the sort. I simply commented on the life expectancy difference between dates.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand - that should pretty much destroy your unemployment worries, since you'll have more retirees than new entrants - looking for work should become a seller's market (which I consider the ideal economic situation) - where wages once again rise, benefits are stronger and quality-of-life over-all goes up tremendously for the entire population. The happiest and wealthiest nations are the ones where for each job-seeker you have several companies competing for their services, trying to outbid one a
Re: (Score:2)
You would hope it would destroy the unemployment issues. However, i have serious doubts if the economic growth doesn't improve and workers retiring is the solution to unemployment. There will likely be problems negating and improvements.
Its sad. But i have little hope of real economic improvement any time soon. I agree that low unemployment is the best way to increase wages and brnefits.
Re: (Score:1)
In earliest days of Social Security, there were hundreds of "contributors" per beneficiary, but that was a startup issue.
In 1945, there were 42 people paying into Social Security for every person receiving retirement benefits.
In 1950, there were 16.5 people paying into Social Security for every person receiving retirement benefits.
In 1970, there were 3.7 people paying into Social Security for every person receiving retirement benefits.
In 1990, there were 3.4 people paying into Social Security for every pers
Re: (Score:2)
Income inequality does contribute to the problem. There's an individual cap on Social Security contributions that kicks in at something like twice the median household income, so most people do contribute based on their total income. If everybody made less than that, all income from actually working would be taxed. If you have a lot of people making a whole lot more than the cap, so that that part of income becomes significant, there's less money going in.
This also makes FICA extremely regressive as a
Re: (Score:2)
People who live to 60 in 1940 would live for another 13 years.
People who lived to 60 in 2000 lived for another 15 years.
This is all part of the SS plan. Expert have calculations and use them the pubs would have you believe it doesn't change and is never adjusted. They would also have you believe it's broke, it is not.
The pubs are pushing for a 1920s class device.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps, but those are longevity statistics (and not correct per CDC figures). You are ignoring the odds of making it to 60, mortality statistics.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1930, 59.20.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1940, 63.62.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1950, 68.07.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1960, 69.89.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1970, 70.75.
Average life expectancy of people born in 1980, 73.88.
Average life expectancy of people born in
Re: (Score:2)
No, it wasn't meant to be a replacement for savings, and you weren't supposed to get out what you put in. A small portion of the population was supposed to collect it, because most of them didn't live long enough to.
Not entirely true. I think you are including childhood mortality. If you made it to age 20 (working age) in 1935, the year that the Social Security Act was enacted, you could expect to live to be about 66 years old if you were a man, or 68 if you were a woman [uoregon.edu]. This isn't a "small portion of the population", it is, by definition of being the average life expectancy, at least half the population.
Life expectancy has gotten longer but it has been a very gradual process and the taxes have increased over the
Re: (Score:1)
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1930, 45.94
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1940, 48.54
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1950, 51.20
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1960, 52.58
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1970, 53.00
Average number of years of life remaining for those who were 20 in 1980, 55.46
Average number of years of life remaining fo
Re: (Score:2)
So, considering that the average person is still paying in almost 4 times as long as they are gaining, there should be no reason why this cannot be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
" "You likely won't live to use it, but if you do, you will be well taken care of"
that is completely false. everything about it is just wrong.
People live a couple of years longer. then they did in 1940. That's it.
Re: (Score:1)
Social Security was actually established as a temporary measure during the Great Depression. It was created for retirees during the Great Depression because they had no money and needed to survive (this was when the poverty rate for retirees was over 50%). It was built as a temporary solution.
You can argue about this all day long, but go look at the history. The Federal Government basically saw it as an additional revenue stream for all their programs. Sure they toted it as something else. But if they
Re: (Score:2)
It was originally something like a trust fund program. During the Reagan years, it became effectively general income, since the Social Security administration was required to invest money in T-bills.
November? (Score:2)
Without reading the details.. I doubt this will pass, if its democrat sponsered, the repubs will shut it down in the house. If it's GOP approved, the senate will kill it. Gotta love our divided country!
Re: (Score:2)
Without reading the details.. I doubt this will pass, if its democrat sponsered, the repubs will shut it down in the house. If it's GOP approved, the senate will kill it. Gotta love our divided country!
Seperation of power results in loss of power for all!
Re:November? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seperation of power results in loss of power for all!
As it should be. We need fewer laws, not more of them.
Re: (Score:1)
Congress misuses the Interstaye Commerce Clause in many Rube Goldbergian arguments to extend their power, but this is a legitimate, direct use of it for its real intention: stopping states from throwing up roadblocks to interstate commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
based on what, exactly? why would an increasing complex world need less laws?
You are begging the question.
Re: (Score:2)
>As it should be. We need fewer laws, not more of them.
While I agree with the general principle you DO need enough of a functioning system to be able to actually pass the good laws and revoke the bad ones.
A government that cannot get either done at all (which is what the US has today) is nothing but a massive and worthless expense.
As an anarchist the system I favour would make new laws much easier to suggest and pass than any govenrment but, with a much greater level of oversight (since everybody votes
Re: (Score:2)
Both the article and the summary state that it's already passed the House.
I'm curious, do any other countries tax Internet usage? I know the French proposed doing it to pay for their state-owned public television stations but I'm not sure how far that went.
Re: (Score:2)
There is VAT (sales tax) on telecommunication services in every country in the EU, ranging from 15% in Luxembourg to 27% in Hungary. The average rate is around 20%.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, thanks for the info. So is this a tax on service fees or products purchased over the Internet (or are there separate taxes for both)?
Is this tax earmarked for a particular item, or added to the country's general fund? Sorry I realize you may not know the answers to these questions.
Re: (Score:2)
The tax I was referring to is on the service fees. Sales tax on products purchased online is at the same rate as for products purchased offline. Of the sales tax, 0.33% goes to EU funds and the rest goes to the country's own general funds.
Re: (Score:1)
"if its democrat sponsered, the repubs will shut it down in the house"
"Now the U.S. House has passed a passed a permanent version of the ban, which also applies to several states that had passed Internet taxes before 1998 and were grandfathered in under the temporary law. The Senate must pass the bill as well by November 1 or the temporary ban will lapse."
I mean, it's right in the summary man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
do you think you should have to pay a nickle everytime you log in to the government???
Gee, I wish I had a login for the government...
Re: (Score:2)
It's also about internet-only services.
Texas has such a tax, for example. When my wife and I played World of Warcraft, we had to pay the monthly (or quarterly, whatever) subscription charge and a tax on the service. People in most other states don't have to, because Texas has had its take on internet-only services like that from before 1998.
Before WoW, my wife and I played EverQuest, except she started her account when we still lived in Tennessee. Even after we moved to Texas, her account was never subje
Re: (Score:2)
I think a tax is a great way to add to the infrastructure. IT's a great way to help balance out revenues lost from higher fuel economies.
People look and complain about the Speeds i the US compared to other countries and complain. Ignoring that other countries tax in order to get high speeds infrastructure.
This gimme more and don't tax me attitude needs to end.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much all infrastructure is taxed, why should the Internet be different?
Other infrastructure, such as bridges and sewers, are taxed because THE GOVERNMENT BUILT THEM. So they are taxed to pay off the bonds that financed their construction, and to pay for ongoing maintenance. The Internet runs on fibers, cables, and routers financed by private companies. It is a different situation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Try again.
Re: (Score:2)
You can be sure that it wasn't Democrat-sponsored and opposed by (at least a few) Republicans. Otherwise that would be in the summary.
From the article: "The House, in a voice vote Tuesday, passed the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act, over the objections of some Democrats."
Re: (Score:2)
It was sponsored by over 200 people on both sides. It passed by a "voice vote" which means they didn't track exactly who voted for it or against it, but it was overwhelmingly positive. I gather that a few Democrats voted against it, mostly on the grounds that some states tax it and need it as a revenue source (it's a Republican thing to believe that collecting less taxes somehow magically decreases deficits rather than increasing them), but mostly, it's hard to vote against a tax cut in an election year.
Bec
There's no such thing as a "permanent ban" (Score:1)
This is a law. Like all laws, it is automatically superseded by any later laws passed.
This "permanent" ban is valid only until Congress passes a law allowing (or mandating) a tax on internet access, and is automatically voided by such a law.
In other words, this is a waste of time, and it doesn't matter in the slightest if this dies in the Senate, is vetoed by the President, or just burned in effigy....
Re: (Score:1)
This is the "until a later congress decides otherwise" extension of a law that was passed in 1998 with a "only so long as congress re-affirms it every ~4 years" clause. The only part of it that was heavily debated in the house was some democrats arguing that it should be a campaign issue every couple years and some other democrats arguing that their constituents are sick of seeing it come up every 4 years and want it permanent. Republicans argued about what it meant in regards to states' authority to tax
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Two things:
If the law that this law is replacing accomplished the same thing but required annual renewal, then no States will have taxes on internet services.
Unless this is a matter in Interstate Commerce (admittedly, it's probably an easy case to make, but then automobile sales are a matter of Interstate Commerce, and are taxed by the several States), the Federal Government actually has no jurisdiction to tell the States they can't pass their own laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that this one law from Congress makes sure that 10,000 municipalities cannot enact a tax on internet service.
So it is not a waste of time.
Bundled Fees? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:a bit of legislative history (Score:5, Insightful)
As was previously pointed out, there is nothing in this bill to prevent PAYING FOR Internet services out of tax revenues, only that services can't be arbitrarily made more expensive by local governments, states, and the Federal government itself. There's also nothing preventing municipalities from building networks and Internet services - and they can charge for that service just like anyone else. They just can't charge a service fee AND a tax.
So your rant is based on a false premise.
To use your phrasing, it says we don't want governments shitting on the idea of having Internet access without paying a tax for the privilege.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But Obamacare was written as a fee but it's actually a tax.
Re: (Score:2)
The typical phone and cable bill in the US includes on average a $4 levy by your local city/state. These are easy taxes for the localities to pass. Congress anticipated localities using "internet" taxes to try to balance budgets and banned them before many could pass them (even though a few got them passed before congress could act). This tax ban should have been made permanent years ago and waived those localities that jumped at the opportunity and put taxes in place. It specifically prevents cities from t
Re: (Score:2)
These are easy taxes for the localities to pass.
Then they should be eliminated, or at least made more difficult to pass. WTH?
We need a straight up progressive income tax with no exceptions, deductions, credits or waivers.
Well we already have the most progressive tax system in the world, but you're right, it needs to be flattened, and the vast majority of those deductions, exceptions, etc. NEED to be eliminated. There is a MAJOR issue with the complexity of the current tax code. This desperately needs fixing, and no one is even talking about it.
If they need more money let them raise the base tax. This BS where they tax every little thing and service is grossly unfair and tends to disproportionately shift the tax burden to the middle class/poor and excessively harms the poor.
Exactly this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
This is the way of the world. Of course the naive and ignorant think that the fat pig that is capitalism can be bled endlessly...
so (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
netflix is not internet access.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah House! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Do you have a clue how disastrous this will be?
The Pubs (Score:2)
continue driving the country towards become a cesspool of ignorance.
Anything to stop funding of key programs.
I think this show they are attacking any non rich person in the country, and we shouldn't stand for it. It's class warfare, and the rich are winning.
Tax the same and allow cities to build networks. (Score:1)
Municipalities should be allowed to build their own networks. I guess the ISPs are afraid of their competition.
The Internet does not deserve any special tax privileges. If my phone service can be taxed, so could my Internet service. Goods brought on the Internet should also be subject to the same sales taxes as goods bought locally, because, otherwise, Internet stores have an advantage.
That being said, I hate sales taxes because they are so regressive. I also despise that income is taxed differently. Wages
Our city imposes a 3% tax on utilities (Score:2)
Our city imposes (suckered the voters into approving) a 3% tax on utilities - comm, power, gas, ... - and has for several years. I think that includes internet service (which is pretty steep around here). My wife and I have been fighting this law and its renewal. (It is driving businesses out of the city - they can cut their costs substantially by relocating just over the line - and thus both blighting the city and cutting other tax revenue.
I think I need to do a little checking to see if they ARE taxing
Now you just wait... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
This means no tax-funded internet, it doesn't mean municipal internet is dead.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't even mean that. It means no tax funding of government Internet projects (or anything else) using taxes on (private) Internet services.
They can still fund it out of general funds (or state gas taxes, for that matter, which are often used for things other than roads.)
Re:So then no public funded internet? (Score:5, Informative)
Using taxes for internet is something completely different than taxing for using the internet. This law bans the latter. You're describing the former.
Re: (Score:3)
Not necessarily. It just means no public internet funded by a tax paid by people who pay for internet access and Internet-only services. The funding could come from general taxes.
There is also no guarantee that such taxes would go to fund public internet. It is quite possible that they would go into general revenue and be use to fund other things.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it means no taxes on internet access. If a city or state wanted to have a socialist-styled state owned ISP instead of the current craze of fascist-style state selected ISP, this would do nothing to stop them. Just as the repeated extensions of the original law have done nothing to regulate who sponsors/starts an ISP.
Re: (Score:2)
If a city or state wanted to have a public utility type state owned ISP instead of the current craze of profit/rent seeking privately owned ISP, this would incentivize the status quo.
There. FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Public utilities are (usually) still for-profit companies, just with government-set prices (and often a government-enforced monopoly). Taxes don't enter into it.
I'd love to see the "last mile" connection maintained by public utilities, breaking all cable company monopolies everywhere, but both "profit seeking" and "taxes" are orthogonal to that discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see the "last mile" connection maintained by public utilities, breaking all cable company monopolies everywhere,
I couldn't agree more.
the other way around (Score:4, Informative)
The bill says that your internet bill won't be used to pay for government, not that government can't pay for internet. Concrete examples - you can't tax voting. Governments can and do pay for voting machines. You don't get taxed on sending your kids to school. The government does pay for government schools. You don't pay a tax on researching solar panels, the government does pay for solar panel research.
Re: (Score:3)
Then universities will have to find a way to communicate information between them. They will allow students to communicate along this network and setup locations to have conversations. Soon the public in the surrounding areas will have access to this inter and intra connection. Languages will be formed to allow simpler communication and distribution. Soon it will be used by businesses and completes monetized. Then universities will have to find a way to . . .
Re: (Score:3)
This means no public internet, it will forever now be a private enterprise. Not sure I like that possibility in the long run given how the ISP monopolies behave.
So you're saying you'd like the NSA to have direct access to your internet activity? Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying you'd like the NSA to have direct access to your internet activity? Nice.
They already have that, and meanwhile, we also get fucked over by the cable and phone companies.
Re: (Score:2)
One's annoying. The other could lead to my kids getting gassed for being enemies of the state. Guess which one I'm more concerned about.
And no, I'm not exaggerating or kidding. If you think your phone bills more important, fuck you.
Re: (Score:2)
One's annoying. The other could lead to my kids getting gassed for being enemies of the state. Guess which one I'm more concerned about.
Why don't you concern yourself with reading comprehension? Or the ability to perform basic reasoning? Go back and read my comment again (and again, and again, apparently) until you understand that you're talking nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
No, this just means that local municipalities cannot attach an excise tax to internet service, like they do for telephone service.
Governments are free to spend tax dollars on building networks and providing access, within applicable legal frameworks.
Example - City X cannot attach a 5% excise tax onto your cable modem service in order to pay for sewer repairs.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)