Macworld Forums: Legislation would prevent federal Internet tax - Macworld Forums

Jump to content

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Legislation would prevent federal Internet tax

#1 User is offline   MW Forums Icon

  • Power User
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 12,220
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:10 PM

A U.S. senator announced Monday he will soon introduce a bill that would prevent Congress from extending a long-standing telecommunications tax to Internet access. more
0

#2 User is offline   iron_chef Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 28-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:19 PM

I wonder what kind of tax they would need to levy to pay off this war?
0

#3 User is offline   samrod Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 31-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:31 PM

In reply to:

I wonder what kind of tax they would need to levy to pay off this war?


None. A sustained, strong, and productive economy alone can increase tax revenues in a few years enough to cover the war. People seem to think that the only two ways to get more money into the government are by raising taxes and making new ones.
0

#4 User is offline   iron_chef Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 314
  • Joined: 28-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 01:46 PM

or you can borrow that money and stick the bill to future americans like we are now.
How's that deficit coming along?
0

#5 User is offline   j_drake Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 27-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:02 PM

And who's going to pay that tax, and how often will it need to be adjusted to cover this ? And what about the other "programs" our taxes normally cover? where do they end up? Traditionally the FET has been used to pay for war . So do not think this is something new, or that it's going to go away any time soon.
0

#6 User is offline   mattt Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 11-April 05

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:13 PM

In reply to:

or you can borrow that money and stick the bill to future americans like we are now.
How's that deficit coming along?


That's not the deficit, that's the national debt. And it's easy to see how it's coming along:
http://www.cedarcomm...elm1/usdebt.htm
mt
0

#7 User is offline   gudin Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 11-April 05

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:16 PM

How exactly does legislation "Prevent" other legislation from the same legislature???
Why couldn't Congress later repeal whatever this bill would do, and then impose the tax at whatever level they please?
As far as I know, the only way to "Prevent" Congress from doing something is for it to be declared unconstitutional. Judges have to do that.
0

#8 User is offline   samrod Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 31-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:36 PM

Other than creating new taxes and reasing existing ones, which generally have mixed results, existing federal taxe revenue can cover it.
How? By reducing unemployment (more income tax revenue). This in turn increases spending which gives the states more sales tax revenue so they seek less federal funding. It also leads to investement, which yields even more tax revenue (capitol gains). As daily commuters, the employed are huge consumers of fuel, which adds additional revenue.
Simply put: while the unemployed (like my lazy ass) are burdens on the state, the employed, more than any single tax, are significant contributors to state and federal revenue.
0

#9 User is offline   Schneb Icon

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,727
  • Joined: 10-December 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:48 PM

Good and simple to understand point of view. I agree, samrod.
0

#10 User is offline   Schneb Icon

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,727
  • Joined: 10-December 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 02:49 PM

Good and simple to understand point of view. I agree, samrod. I also happen to be a proponent of a flat tax. But I don't want to get flamed right now.
0

#11 User is offline   pdrayton Icon

  • Veteran
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,829
  • Joined: 19-September 03

Posted 11 April 2005 - 03:24 PM

Phew! I'm not the only one who likes the flat income tax!
I'm glad to see someone trying to prevent taxes on internet access and VoIP. Congress is probably as effective at solving problems through taxation as lotteries are at improving education.
Though a later Congress could overturn a prohibition on Federal internet taxes, it would be much more difficult to do so with a prohibition already in place.
0

#12 User is offline   samrod Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 441
  • Joined: 31-August 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 04:02 PM

"I agree, samrod. I also happen to be a proponent of a flat tax."
HERE HERE!
Actually the graph for a flat tax would technically be a step:
code:


|
_|


Because those below a certain income level would pay 0%. I'm all for a flat (or step) tax!
0

#13 User is offline   H53kilo Icon

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 11-April 05

Posted 11 April 2005 - 08:46 PM

IMHO, a flat tax is no better than what we have now. It still allows the idiots in DC to raise the tax rate whenever they feel it's warranted and we still have to deal with the Internal Rectal Service. A better solution would be a consumption tax. No IRS to deal with (they get disbanded) and regardless of what the pinheads in Washington do, your taxes are based entirely on your spending habits.
An added benefit of a consumption tax is that 100% of the population contributes; to include those visiting from abroad and the 12M+ illegal aliens living here now.
0

#14 User is offline   HumanJHawkins Icon

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 541
  • Joined: 22-January 03

Posted 11 April 2005 - 09:20 PM

Me too... If every man, woman, and child were billed a flat $20,000 per year, we could support current programs and slowly pay down the debt. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
0

  • (2 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users