This Story is Archived
New Congress: No Internet Access Taxes »
Posted by: hereyago 1 year, 8 months agoDuring its first full day, the 110th, Democratic-controlled Congress got to work on new legislation and one of the first tech-related bills introduced was The Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2007. The bill, sponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), John McCain (R-AZ) and John Sununu (R-NH) aims to permanently extend an existing ban on state and lo
Read Full Story at today.reuters.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 94
-
vandee
Jan. 8, 2007, 9:24 p.m.It is a big deal -- and a good thing. Now they just need to get their act together and enforce permanent net neutrality so that the greedy liars at the phone and cable companies can't extort website owners and customers with their "premium fees" they've been spending millions to lobby for. They've got a massive spin campaign of lies that makes it sound like they're the good guys when what they really want is to decide which websites we can all visit (i.e. the ones they own) and stifle the rest (the ones they don't)
-
joemont
Jan. 9, 2007, 12:35 a.m.vandee
Good Post!!
I spent years in that business & sold tons of Fiber Optic stuff that was and is still being used on a number of backbone fiber routes to Telco's, major ISP's, POP's (Point of Presence Providers) and others that built the original WWW I net. Miles of it are still used and a lot of the newer stuff from the same outfit to build the newer net WWW II net put in.
Fujitsu was the outfit.
Anyway, the Telco's, cable outfits and some others don't want to charge YOU. What they want to do is to charge companies that want access to the net fees to get that access. So a big outfit like Google would be willing and probably able to pay where a small startup or someone hosting a small Webpage might not. Guess who's traffic they would carry? NOT the little guys.
Its called "Net Neutrality" to keep it equal for everyone. That is one of the founding concepts behind the net from its origination. We ALL should support NET NEUTRALITY.
Go Jayhawks!!!
(:>)
-
-
-
-
ameliog
Jan. 8, 2007, 1:06 p.m.thanks for the story. taxes get slipped into everything so it's nice to see someone keeping an eye on more than just personal income tax.
-
-
joeblowe
Jan. 8, 2007, 1:15 p.m.Hey, any time my representatives vote to NOT put on a new tax, I'm all for it. Too bad it doesn't happen more often.
-
-
slate
Jan. 8, 2007, 1:37 p.m.it's almost scary how much we are taxed,,,,, taxes touch just about verything we do,,,, Im certian they would tax us by how many times a day we inhale and exhale if given the chance.
Glad to get cut a break for once
-
ind06
Jan. 8, 2007, 1:59 p.m.We aren't citizens to D.C., we're revenue enhancement opportunity windows.
-
-
-
slate
Jan. 8, 2007, 2:28 p.m.We aren't citizens to D.C., we're revenue enhancement opportunity windows.
LOLOLOL oh yeah baby!
-
Bacalao
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:05 p.m.they do the same thing to alcahol.you would be supprised at the amout of taxes we have to pay just to be allowed to serve it, that is after and before all the taxes you would normally pay.
-
jordan11
Jan. 8, 2007, 10:58 p.m.Well, in all fairness to WA state, they don't have an income tax. They have to keep their infrastructure going somehow.
-
slate
Jan. 8, 2007, 3:13 p.m.WOW!!
I just quit smoking due to the sin tax increase here,,,
I wonder where they will have to go for that tax shortfall that I just created?
-
-
ConquerorWyrm
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:23 p.m.oy...we got us a sweet new tax out here in AZ on cigs as well...need to quit, need to quit, need to quit...
but those sweet, beautiful, cylindrical bundles of joy are just soooo fun...so fun...
-
lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
-
MajJohn
Jan. 8, 2007, 3:47 p.m.This is a good find, less taxes are good for all. I'll have to give the Democrats one for one on this even though it appears the bill had more republican sponsors. Never mind, good things are happening. Keep a close eye on Rep Stevens broad band tax proposal. I hope it fails also.
I hear they are going to cancel the tax on inhaling and just collect a tax on exhaling. Is a half a loaf really better than nothing? I long for the Eisenhower nothing days!
-
-
ConquerorWyrm
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:26 p.m."I long for the Eisenhower...days"
Amen..."Beware the Military Industrial Complex"
-
-
Dave53
Jan. 8, 2007, 3:54 p.m.One unfortunate fact of our society is that some governing body will tax anything that doesn't appear to be politically suicide. My state of OK passed a no tax increase without a vote of the people. Fine, so what did happen, fees generally increased. Of course, exceeding the actual cost of doing anything for a fee, is in fact a tax. Honor in politics.
Taxes are necessary, but to tax something just because it doesn't have a tax or because it isn't politically suicide, is morally wrong.
All taxes are repressive to somebody.
-
spikecwc
Jan. 9, 2007, 6:56 a.m.Same thing has happened in California since Propostition 13 was passed by the voters back in the '70s.
-
-
-
krayzdrayzor
Jan. 8, 2007, 4:41 p.m.20% National sales tax, right off the top. No income tax. No property tax.
Just imagine: You don't pay to work, only to pay for what you buy and maintain and invest in, only to annually pay for what you've retained, to then finally pay (or rather) your estate pay because you died and managed to give to your children.
See, to save all that money won't dry out the coffers because what will people do with their money? Spend, spend, spend- which in turn is taxed.
With no write-offs one achieves an egalitarian way of proportional taxation, everyone can afford what they pay in taxes not buy what they earn, but by individually contorling their spending.
Huh, a nation of concientious spenders what values could spread up, down, and out?
-
ConquerorWyrm
Jan. 8, 2007, 6:03 p.m.Oh, brilliant idea!
Let's just let the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...
See, let's take two hypothetical families of 5. In one, the main bread earner has just had his job outsourced to China and now has to work 2 minimum wage jobs, with his wife working 1 also. The other family? Old money, earned by ancestors with the family living on the earned interest of investments, not by working...ah, that life of pampered ease...
Now, take all those taxes away...the struggling family gets a tiny boon. The wealthy scoin of money he never worked for? Oh, a massive boon!
Now, monthy food, cost of living expenses, clothes, etc...
The poor family now pays astronomically more in the consumer based tax on the poor you propose.
The wealthy family? They spend just the same, hypothetically, on those consumer goods. Does it hurt them? No, they get to be Lords now, thank you very much...a 20% sales tax, proportionately, doesn't affect them.
-
ConquerorWyrm
Jan. 8, 2007, 6:09 p.m.But to just live, the tiny amount saved on income tax for the poor family is nothing compared to the extra they now must pay just to feed the baby.
Your idea is wonderful, if only in a theoretical environment wherein the playing field is level to begin with. What you seem to be proposing is to take this playing field, already tilted, tilt it ever so much more and then call it level.
Sadly, that will result in a national disaster...except for the wealthy elite minority...they get to be true-blue aristocrats...
If you want to propose something like this, first you have to level the playing field...but I don't really think you're going to suggest that, right? I mean, that would be communism, wouldn't it? No, disproportionate wealth is always better to start with if you're going to try to pull the wool over the peoples eyes.
Just imagine...hungry babies dying because parents couldn't afford your generous 20% tax on life...
-
lovermanComment has been removed: User banned.
-
-
rathskeller
Jan. 8, 2007, 4:47 p.m.thanks for the post...good news for a change...now if they stay on track...
-
Bacalao
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:11 p.m.this is NOT a cut on the republicans. repeat.... this is NOT a cut on the republicans.
I remember president G.H.W. bush saying "no new taxes" instead he gave us fees, surcharges, ect. What is to prevent the new congress from doing the same? Remember a politician will say they are against taxes then call them something else.
-
kctrixter
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:41 p.m.I remember president G.H.W. bush saying "no new taxes" instead he gave us fees, surcharges, ect. What is to prevent the new congress from doing the same?
Hopefully the 2008 elections
-
spikecwc
Jan. 9, 2007, 7 a.m.The states put up fees and surcharges around the country, but I can't think of any instituted by the Feds. Name some please.
-
-
jumpmaster
Jan. 8, 2007, 5:55 p.m.These guys crack me up.
Congratulations guys. You did not do anything. I mean, the result is the same as it was yesterday. Do you want a gold star?
Or, I guess you could look at it like "Thanks for not hitting me in the head"
-
IcCaRus
Jan. 8, 2007, 6:25 p.m.thank you to the 110th Congress and each member who voted for this, both democrat and republican... you all did something good (for a change)... see, that didnt hurt, did it?
-
-
bgibbs07
Jan. 8, 2007, 8:53 p.m.Politicians voting AGAINST a tax? They must have put something in the water.
The first 60 comments are shown. Show all 94 comments »
