E mail tax

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

 

http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBUrbanMyths.shtml#emailtax

 

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.


...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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
=========================================


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

 

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.


...

 

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

 

Let's just remember how all of these 'good intentioned' things ended up.

 

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.

 

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!

 

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!.

 

Its stupid.


Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

 

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

 

Good point, misread what you wrote. Apologies.

 

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.

 

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!

 

------------ SNIPped for brevity -------------

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...................

 

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.