E mail tax

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by tflfb, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. tflfb

    tflfb Guest

    Big brother wants to tax the internet, either e-mail, web surfing, or
    anything else they can think of.

    Let your senator know your views regarding this issue.


    http://www.noemailtax.com
    tflfb, Nov 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tflfb

    Chet Guest

    1. Advertising

  3. tflfb

    Thor Guest

    Chet, unlike the old 602P email tax hoax that has been around for years, the
    OP's issue is a real possibility if the moratorium on Internet Access taxes
    is not renewed. It could conceivably open the door for a state to tax just
    about any bit of data that traverses it's borders. An extreme example, yes.
    But given the options that states will have in taxing internet technologies,
    it is not out of the realm of possibility. They (the states) are already up
    in arms about the trend of telecommunications services becoming more and
    more internet-based, as they aren't able to tax those services like they
    could *before* they became intertwined with the internet. States are foaming
    at the mouth to pounce on that and many new possibilities of revenue that
    non-renewal of the tax moratorium would allow. This is a real and very
    important issue, and not a hoax at all.


    ...
    "Chet" <> wrote in message
    news:Ripvb.265824$Tr4.821987@attbi_s03...
    > http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBUrbanMyths.shtml#emailtax
    >
    >
    Thor, Nov 21, 2003
    #3
  4. And it's not an easy issue to solve, either. If I do business on the
    Internet, am I doing business at *my* location or at my *customer's*
    location? The answer to where the sale takes place determines who gets
    to tax it. (And that just covers sales tax. Income tax is even
    slipperier. And as for regulation... what's legal for me to offer might
    not be legal for you to buy. If I run a Web site from a server in my
    home are visitors to that Web site 'coming into my home' to view it, or
    am I delivering it to their home? Basically, the whole 'geographical
    jurisdiction' thing doesn't work with Internet service-if they're going
    to tax it then they need to come up with a different model, which would
    probably require them restructuring the entire world government. Not
    likely to happen.)

    What'll happen is that either they'll leave it alone or it'll be a huge
    mess for probably the next century or two.

    Thor wrote:

    > Chet, unlike the old 602P email tax hoax that has been around for years, the
    > OP's issue is a real possibility if the moratorium on Internet Access taxes
    > is not renewed. It could conceivably open the door for a state to tax just
    > about any bit of data that traverses it's borders. An extreme example, yes.
    > But given the options that states will have in taxing internet technologies,
    > it is not out of the realm of possibility. They (the states) are already up
    > in arms about the trend of telecommunications services becoming more and
    > more internet-based, as they aren't able to tax those services like they
    > could *before* they became intertwined with the internet. States are foaming
    > at the mouth to pounce on that and many new possibilities of revenue that
    > non-renewal of the tax moratorium would allow. This is a real and very
    > important issue, and not a hoax at all.
    >
    >
    > ..
    > "Chet" <> wrote in message
    > news:Ripvb.265824$Tr4.821987@attbi_s03...
    >
    >>http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBUrbanMyths.shtml#emailtax
    >>
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    Calvin Crumrine, Nov 21, 2003
    #4
  5. tflfb

    Night_Seer Guest

    Calvin Crumrine wrote:
    > And it's not an easy issue to solve, either. If I do business on the
    > Internet, am I doing business at *my* location or at my *customer's*
    > location? The answer to where the sale takes place determines who gets
    > to tax it. (And that just covers sales tax. Income tax is even
    > slipperier. And as for regulation... what's legal for me to offer
    > might not be legal for you to buy. If I run a Web site from a server
    > in my home are visitors to that Web site 'coming into my home' to
    > view it, or am I delivering it to their home? Basically, the whole
    > 'geographical jurisdiction' thing doesn't work with Internet
    > service-if they're going to tax it then they need to come up with a
    > different model, which would probably require them restructuring the
    > entire world government. Not likely to happen.)
    >
    > What'll happen is that either they'll leave it alone or it'll be a
    > huge mess for probably the next century or two.
    >
    > Thor wrote:
    >
    >> Chet, unlike the old 602P email tax hoax that has been around for
    >> years, the OP's issue is a real possibility if the moratorium on
    >> Internet Access taxes is not renewed. It could conceivably open the
    >> door for a state to tax just about any bit of data that traverses
    >> it's borders. An extreme example, yes. But given the options that
    >> states will have in taxing internet technologies, it is not out of
    >> the realm of possibility. They (the states) are already up in arms
    >> about the trend of telecommunications services becoming more and
    >> more internet-based, as they aren't able to tax those services like
    >> they could *before* they became intertwined with the internet.
    >> States are foaming at the mouth to pounce on that and many new
    >> possibilities of revenue that non-renewal of the tax moratorium
    >> would allow. This is a real and very important issue, and not a hoax
    >> at all.
    >>
    >>
    >> ..
    >> "Chet" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Ripvb.265824$Tr4.821987@attbi_s03...
    >>
    >>> http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBUrbanMyths.shtml#emailtax


    They are trying to use this stupid tax as a way to curtial spamming,
    which is only punishing the non-spammers along with the spammers. There
    are much better ways to do this.

    --
    Night_Seer
    Night_Seer, Nov 21, 2003
    #5
  6. tflfb

    Jerry G. Guest

    Where did you get that reference from? I heard that there is a big hoax
    going around about that one!

    --

    Greetings,

    Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
    =========================================
    WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
    Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
    =========================================


    "tflfb" <> wrote in message
    news:c4nvb.3$...
    Big brother wants to tax the internet, either e-mail, web surfing, or
    anything else they can think of.

    Let your senator know your views regarding this issue.


    http://www.noemailtax.com
    Jerry G., Nov 21, 2003
    #6
  7. tflfb

    Thor Guest

    People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill that
    would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would renew
    the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this bill
    because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.


    ...
    "Jerry G." <> wrote in message
    news:bpm7ni$9i5$...
    > Where did you get that reference from? I heard that there is a big hoax
    > going around about that one!
    >
    > --
    >
    > Greetings,
    >
    > Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
    > =========================================
    > WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
    > Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
    > =========================================
    >
    >
    > "tflfb" <> wrote in message
    > news:c4nvb.3$...
    > Big brother wants to tax the internet, either e-mail, web surfing, or
    > anything else they can think of.
    >
    > Let your senator know your views regarding this issue.
    >
    >
    > http://www.noemailtax.com
    >
    >
    >
    Thor, Nov 22, 2003
    #7
  8. tflfb

    tflfb Guest

    If your apposed to any tax the government might try to impose, it would be
    to your advantage to let your representatives know.

    I would hate to be taxed for the amount of time, I surf the net, or spam e
    mail I receive. Its an easy form to fill out.

    http://www.noemailtax.com

    Tom


    "Jerry G." <> wrote in message
    news:bpm7ni$9i5$...
    > Where did you get that reference from? I heard that there is a big hoax
    > going around about that one!
    >
    > --
    >
    > Greetings,
    >
    > Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
    > =========================================
    > WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
    > Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
    > =========================================
    >
    >
    > "tflfb" <> wrote in message
    > news:c4nvb.3$...
    > Big brother wants to tax the internet, either e-mail, web surfing, or
    > anything else they can think of.
    >
    > Let your senator know your views regarding this issue.
    >
    >
    > http://www.noemailtax.com
    >
    >
    >
    tflfb, Nov 22, 2003
    #8
  9. tflfb

    Adam Steiner Guest

    <snip Calvin Crumin and Thor>
    > They are trying to use this stupid tax as a way to curtial spamming,
    > which is only punishing the non-spammers along with the spammers. There
    > are much better ways to do this.
    >
    > --
    > Night_Seer


    Let's just remember how all of these 'good intentioned' things ended up.
    Adam Steiner, Nov 24, 2003
    #9
  10. tflfb

    Adam Steiner Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill that
    > would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    > current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    > internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    > taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    > services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would

    renew
    > the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this bill
    > because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    >


    Thor,

    You need to be more careful in your terminology. The states won't be
    'losing' billions in revenues, they just won't be taxing more areas. Ok, so
    if the trend continues they'll take in less money than they did before...but
    I'm sure they'll find other ways to get their money :)
    Adam Steiner, Nov 24, 2003
    #10
  11. tflfb

    Thor Guest

    "Adam Steiner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Thor" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill

    that
    > > would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    > > current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    > > internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    > > taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    > > services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would

    > renew
    > > the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this

    bill
    > > because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    > >

    >
    > Thor,
    >
    > You need to be more careful in your terminology. The states won't be
    > 'losing' billions in revenues, they just won't be taxing more areas. Ok,

    so
    > if the trend continues they'll take in less money than they did

    before...but
    > I'm sure they'll find other ways to get their money :)


    I said "they state" that they will lose billions in revenue. That was what
    they are arguing, not I.
    Thor, Nov 24, 2003
    #11
  12. tflfb

    Trent© Guest

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:45:30 -0900, Calvin Crumrine
    <> wrote:

    >And it's not an easy issue to solve, either. If I do business on the
    >Internet, am I doing business at *my* location or at my *customer's*
    >location? The answer to where the sale takes place determines who gets
    >to tax it.
    >(And that just covers sales tax. Income tax is even
    >slipperier. And as for regulation... what's legal for me to offer might
    >not be legal for you to buy. If I run a Web site from a server in my
    >home are visitors to that Web site 'coming into my home' to view it, or
    >am I delivering it to their home? Basically, the whole 'geographical
    >jurisdiction' thing doesn't work with Internet service-if they're going
    >to tax it then they need to come up with a different model, which would
    >probably require them restructuring the entire world government. Not
    >likely to happen.)
    >
    >What'll happen is that either they'll leave it alone or it'll be a huge
    >mess for probably the next century or two.
    >


    Its all being done quite handily now...with mail order. Why do you
    think using a computer instead of a telephone would make it any more
    difficult?


    Have a nice week...

    Trent

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
    Trent©, Nov 24, 2003
    #12
  13. tflfb

    Trent© Guest

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:06:34 -0500, "Thor" <> wrote:

    >People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill that
    >would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    >current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    >internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    >taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    >services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would renew
    >the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this bill
    >because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    >


    But it has nothing to do with email per se.

    The header says 'E mail tax'. There is none...nor is there any
    proposed.

    The proposed tax relates to Internet ACCESS There is no proposed tax
    for browsing, email, downloading, etc.


    Have a nice week...

    Trent

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!.
    Trent©, Nov 24, 2003
    #13
  14. tflfb

    Trent© Guest

    On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:01:09 -0600, "tflfb" <> wrote:

    >If your apposed to any tax the government might try to impose, it would be
    >to your advantage to let your representatives know.
    >
    >I would hate to be taxed for the amount of time, I surf the net, or spam e
    >mail I receive. Its an easy form to fill out.
    >
    >http://www.noemailtax.com
    >


    Its stupid.


    Have a nice week...

    Trent

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
    Trent©, Nov 24, 2003
    #14
  15. tflfb

    Thor Guest

    "Trent©" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:06:34 -0500, "Thor" <> wrote:
    >
    > >People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill that
    > >would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    > >current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    > >internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    > >taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    > >services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would

    renew
    > >the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this bill
    > >because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    > >

    >
    > But it has nothing to do with email per se.
    >
    > The header says 'E mail tax'. There is none...nor is there any
    > proposed.
    >
    > The proposed tax relates to Internet ACCESS There is no proposed tax
    > for browsing, email, downloading, etc.
    >


    The bill in question isn't even a "proposed tax" as you put it. It's a
    permanent renewal of the former 6 year federal moratorium on internet access
    taxes (which is rather misleading because it applies to more than mere
    "access") which expired Nov. 1. Without this moratorium, states are *free*
    to tax whatever aspect of internet services they wish, up to and including
    email if they so desire, because there is no prohibition against just such
    an act without this blanket moratorium. Just because there is no "proposed
    tax" to specifically target email, doesn't mean the door should be left wide
    open for even the possibility of such a tax. Prior to the moratorium, there
    were states that were charging That is what the bill's opponents are
    fighting for. The freedom to tax whatever aspect of internet services they
    so desire. One look at an itemized telephone bill and the numerous extra
    fees added as a result of the telcos passing on taxes mandated by the
    government is enough to make sure they don't have the power to do the same
    with the internet, IMHO.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/14/INTERNETTAX.TMP
    Thor, Nov 24, 2003
    #15
  16. tflfb

    Adam Steiner Guest

    "Thor" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Adam Steiner" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >
    > > "Thor" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill

    > that
    > > > would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with

    the
    > > > current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    > > > internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array

    of
    > > > taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    > > > services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would

    > > renew
    > > > the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this

    > bill
    > > > because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    > > >

    > >
    > > Thor,
    > >
    > > You need to be more careful in your terminology. The states won't be
    > > 'losing' billions in revenues, they just won't be taxing more areas.

    Ok,
    > so
    > > if the trend continues they'll take in less money than they did

    > before...but
    > > I'm sure they'll find other ways to get their money :)

    >
    > I said "they state" that they will lose billions in revenue. That was what
    > they are arguing, not I.


    Good point, misread what you wrote. Apologies.
    Adam Steiner, Nov 24, 2003
    #16
  17. Thor wrote:
    > "Trent©" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 21:06:34 -0500, "Thor" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>People are confusing the old email tax hoax (which cited a fake bill that
    >>>would impose an email tax) that periodically makes it's rounds with the
    >>>current, and very real issue of the expiration of the US moratorium on
    >>>internet access taxes that prevent states from imposing a wide array of
    >>>taxes upon just about anything they chose, up to and including email
    >>>services. The bill being considered in the US congress right now would

    >
    > renew
    >
    >>>the moratoruim, and make it permanent. Many states are fighting this bill
    >>>because they state they will lose billions in state revenues.
    >>>

    >>
    >>But it has nothing to do with email per se.
    >>
    >>The header says 'E mail tax'. There is none...nor is there any
    >>proposed.
    >>
    >>The proposed tax relates to Internet ACCESS There is no proposed tax
    >>for browsing, email, downloading, etc.
    >>

    >
    >
    > The bill in question isn't even a "proposed tax" as you put it. It's a
    > permanent renewal of the former 6 year federal moratorium on internet access
    > taxes (which is rather misleading because it applies to more than mere
    > "access") which expired Nov. 1. Without this moratorium, states are *free*
    > to tax whatever aspect of internet services they wish, up to and including
    > email if they so desire, because there is no prohibition against just such
    > an act without this blanket moratorium. Just because there is no "proposed
    > tax" to specifically target email, doesn't mean the door should be left wide
    > open for even the possibility of such a tax. Prior to the moratorium, there
    > were states that were charging That is what the bill's opponents are
    > fighting for. The freedom to tax whatever aspect of internet services they
    > so desire. One look at an itemized telephone bill and the numerous extra
    > fees added as a result of the telcos passing on taxes mandated by the
    > government is enough to make sure they don't have the power to do the same
    > with the internet, IMHO.
    >
    > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/14/INTERNETTAX.TMP
    >
    >

    I could argue in favor of an Internet tax, but I won't only because
    nobody has proposed a bill, AFAIK, that would do anything other than
    raise money for the states.

    Your point about telephone service is well-made. When I was growing up I
    lived in a home without telephone service. My parents (teachers, BTW, so
    it wasn't poverty that was the problem) asked about having phone service
    installed & were told it would cost approx. $10K to put up poles & run
    the phone line out to our house.

    A large part of the telephone tax is to pay for the subsidy that makes
    phone service available to everyone-even those in remote locations. Has
    anyone heard of any proposal to tax Internet access to pay for a similar
    subsidy? I could support that-making Internet access a basic right
    rather than a privilege.
    Calvin Crumrine, Nov 24, 2003
    #17
  18. tflfb

    Trent© Guest

    On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 12:55:34 -0900, Calvin Crumrine
    <> wrote:


    >A large part of the telephone tax is to pay for the subsidy that makes
    >phone service available to everyone-even those in remote locations. Has
    >anyone heard of any proposal to tax Internet access to pay for a similar
    >subsidy? I could support that-making Internet access a basic right
    >rather than a privilege.


    Internet access a RIGHT?! lol

    Hell...a good percentage of today's kids can't even read or write! I
    don't want to pay for their access to AIM! Let them walk to the
    library...if they know where it is.


    Have a nice week...

    Trent

    Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!
    Trent©, Nov 25, 2003
    #18
  19. tflfb

    Robert Baer Guest

    ------------ SNIPped for brevity -------------
    > One look at an itemized telephone bill and the numerous extra
    > fees added as a result of the telcos passing on taxes mandated by the
    > government is enough to make sure they don't have the power to do the same
    > with the internet, IMHO.
    >

    Governments will *ALWAYS* get their way: by definition they are a
    bunch of liars and thieves that cannot be trusted in any way for
    anything.
    And they prove it on a daily basis.
    Remember: The income tax of one percent (!yes that is how it got
    started!) was a *TEMPORARY* tax.
    Also, it was *NEVER* legally ratified!!!!!!
    And guess what...................
    Robert Baer, Nov 25, 2003
    #19
  20. Robert Baer wrote:
    > ------------ SNIPped for brevity -------------
    > Remember: The income tax of one percent (!yes that is how it got
    > started!) was a *TEMPORARY* tax.
    > Also, it was *NEVER* legally ratified!!!!!!


    Certainly it was legally ratified-which means nothing when those in
    charge of the ratification are also those who define what's legal.

    If you oppose the income tax then do so on ethical/philosophical
    grounds-but please stop *lying* about it. The income tax was & is legal.
    Moral/justified is a whole other issue.
    Calvin Crumrine, Nov 25, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Danut
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,457
    Danut
    Jul 8, 2003
  2. Alan Davis
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,277
    Danut
    Jul 8, 2003
  3. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    3,069
    =?Utf-8?B?TG5rV2l6YXJk?=
    Jan 21, 2004
  4. Helper
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    858
  5. Stephanie

    When is Tax-Free PC Week in PA?

    Stephanie, Jul 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,092
    Auric__
    Jul 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page