News – During 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
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?
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...
They did that in Colorado too. Thinking they had a windfall on new taxes. But oops, instead, they got less taxes because so many people either quit or went online to get em.
There is a case in court here were seniors were purchasing cigarettes on line and not paying taxes. It is against the law to purchase cigarettes and transport across state lines without paying the tax on them.
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!
I agree about the Stevens Bill!
Isn't he the one that keep submitting earmarks? A "tax and spend" Republican? Naaw, that CAN'T be... :)
Yes, Senator Ted Stevens (R) Alaska and the infamous "Bridge to No Where". He's quite charming on the Seante floor when he doesn't get his way. Notorious for shouting and having temper tantrums. His face turns bright red. It's quite adorable. And he's about a 100 years old, so you can see how knowledgeable he must be about the internet (he thinks it's a series of tubes). Everyone should watch any bill put forth by this Senator as many are proven to be quite scary to the logical thinking world.
Visit his propaganda site here:
http://stevens.senate.gov/index.cfm
The grandkids must have developed this site for him! :)
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.
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?
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.
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...
Thank you CW, for at least engaging the topic.
2 points, to consider, (1) the "elite minority" spend and live in a more expensive manner. Thus it will cost them in taxes more to live in the lap of luxury. Where those taxes get put to use the gov't controls i.e. funding for those babies you're paying for now out of the multiple taxes you pay now. (2) I'm not sure if you've traveled to Canada. But their National and Providential spending taxes seem to be doing the job for them. I saw no dead babies there. Canada's dollar power is rising, they seem to have got the medicine that many U.S. citizens take bus trips for and apply for dual citizenship for the health benefits. So, I do not think that I'm too far fetched.
Since we are a society of consumers(it is our economic engine), I feel that our consumption should pay for more of taking care of our budget.
Why would you punish your poor 3 job struggling family by taxing their labor earnings? If they are only taxed on what they spend wouldn't frugality acumulate what they do save?
On the other hand, if you've got a person who just has to drive a hummer and guzzle gasoline, therby burdening society shouldn't that person pay their way?
Just imagine people could squander their money and feel at least they were being responsible by not hurting the little people who are struggling.
well, I'll respond as did you, with discussion borne of politeness. Pardon if my initial post was loud (squeaky wheels and all).
You mentioned that it costs more to live in the lap of luxury. Perhaps, but when at the plateau of wealth, and compared to those below, the daily costs of living (food, clothes, etc) are, unless extravagent purchases are made, with this tax you propose, more burdensom upon those with less. A loaf of bread is still a loaf of bread. Put the tax on that and, with a glance into both our hypotheticals pocket-books, we see that one might not be able to afford that loaf of bread. The disparity is there. The needs will yet need and the haves shall never sweat.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm wide open about various tax methods (which is difficult for me being a near bong-throwing Libertarian, but I also understand that government does need funding. See next post for a hint of a radical idea I've been playing with...
The Wyrm's Pie-in-the-Sky, er, Pot-in-the-Sky idea!
Legalize and encourage all industrial, medicinal, research, nutritional, manufacturing (add what I haven't space for) uses of HEMP. Tax said hemp (not sure rates or depth of taxation yet, idea needs input from outside my head). For discussion purposes, let's say 10% on hemp w/ no other taxes on substance allowed. If you are unaware of uses for hemp, please research such. food, fuel, building materials, medicine, oils...more!
Now, each year, hemp economy grows. Each year tax take is larger. Now, where to spend HEMP tax monies...
a) 5% local police (pay,training,equip)
b) 5% fire/rescue (pay,training,equip)
c) 27% education (pay,training,equip)
d) 27% national health care (consumer choice included)
e) 27% infrastructure repairs (our culverts are getting old)
f) 9% veterens benefits and military families
.
mind you, this is very, very brief. full idea has more detail
now, let's talk about lowering income taxes.
input please?
mind again, the continued production across this land will generate jobs by the thousands...engineers to design combines, salesmen to sell the combines, janitors to clean the factory floor...and this is just concerning one machine! branch out to fuel, food, textiles, lubricants and all other uses with all related jobs created to go with. Keep industry, with a little national security protectionism for certain segments (machine manufacturing should not be outsourced, nor spare parts) in the U.S.
Add this onto what is currently extorted by Big Bro and, well, now we got some wiggle room for income tax reduction. We also have a jump start on production of this commodity over other nations. It also opens up new fuel options rather than just relying on oil, or corn ethenol (a bad corn crop spells trouble...a strong secondary/primary will protect against blight)
gotta stop...too many ideas...last time I talked about this, it printed up as 10 pages worth...
This is one of the most amazing arguements for legalization that I've heard yet. You could sell me on the idea if you keep that up.
trust me...
think of all the potential...plastics, fuels, fibers, foods...
the American Farmer will have a crop that pays, and pays big.
We focus, for our main bio-fuel, on hempseed over corn. that crop is too exploited, both for food and fuel, right now. one blight, one bug...hemp is sturdier...grows in all 50 States.
All the jobs created. Using just the need for farm equipment, we've got engineers, mechanics, manufacturing positions, sales, related office and janatorial staffs...now, move to the next industry...plastics...or building materials...or fabrics...or papers...
Then there is the research...chemical, medical...
we've got the bright boys and girls in lab coats all over this country...let's turn them loose.
Seperate the taxation on hemp from other taxes. keep hemp based funds strictly into those areas I mentioned.
Then, each year, as hemp gains in use and popularity as a commodity, more funds...yipee!
oh, invite both big and small business in. open the competitive field as wide as possible. encourage big industry. encourage independant experiment (not a pot pun!) and industry.
fund breakdown:
a) 5% - given to local police departments for training, pay, recruitment, equipment. aim to double relative pay within a decade.
b) 5% - to fire/rescue. these guys need it, and we, the nation over, could use a good civilian emergency program funded.
c) 27% - education. again, aim to double relative pay within a decade. ability to train/hire more teachers (student/teacher ratio). ability to upgrade schools and supplies.
d) 27% - National Healthcare. would create a massive, ever-growing pool from which all Americans can draw from as needed to spend where needed. let's fund individual choice socialism through responsible, rewarding capitalism.
e) 27% - Infrastructure. look, our roads are getting older, our power grids, our culverts, our infrastructure...this would allow for specific funds for such upgrade, starting with subsidizing the change-over in fuels. from there, well, an awful lot of mone will be available and thus an awful lot of jobs rebuilding the backbone of this nation. all that money eventually trickles down to the waitress at the diner where the road crew spends their lunch.
d) 9% - Finacial support for Military Families. trust funds for military orphans. top quality medical priority for vets. financial assisstance to families of the deployed.
.
now add to the general fund these monies available:
$22k-$42k (round about) / year / marijuana inmate
several million marijuana inmates
Need to fund a prison? remove the pot smokers and roll around in the dough.
Sales taxes, specially nationaly, only adversely affects the lower income brackets. Besides, you can't generate enough revenue with any certainty. Credit is affected and when it goes into affect, those that are not able because of incurred debt, won't be able to proceede and become practically destitute. Wouldn't want to be in that frame financially when a national sales tax goes into effect. It would be like scrapping off ones skin in order to cure a rash.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
misterkju
round-up
x-investor
CleoKFletcher
sundaypost
keeper23
SarahLMorrell
KedoZhopiy
AngelMCain
NormanSWofford
DianeSBlack
outname
stwor
uncogito
lovingu
bush.jr
camions
jcolman
Matt McGee
TechnologyExpert
nakedtruth
NoSpinDave
BIGDAKRON
sailr
brettodactyl
AWBillBenson
nonies6966
stuntdubl
bobrboob
focuspuller
gregshortdotcom
starshinediva
wonkydonkey
LastSamurai
NavArmy
respite
Star_Poet
trog
Ciera Marie
eternalsky
Tango57
endtyranny
chas_ven
MattSparkes
ekklesiawarrior
Soren85
progy
getreal1
Mimsmitty
curtisbeedle
94)
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)
http://www.savetheinternet.com/
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!!!
(:>)
Thank you.
No, they don't want to directly charge customers like you and me who use the net, but if website owners suddenly have to start paying massive "premium" extortion fees to the phone and cable companies just to keep their business online and their websites open, then who do you think that extra cost is going to be passed on to?
All of us, that's who.
Agreed, all around!