backtop

Print 191 comment(s) - last by YashBudini.. on Jun 10 at 11:40 PM
"If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street; If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat" -- "Taxman" by The Beatles

The U.S. government has compiled some creative ideas to "save journalism" or more aptly to save newspapers.  Among their feel-good suggestions to help preserve the free press (paper) is to institute a 5 percent tax on all consumer electronics.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has submitted a multi-faceted list of suggestions for public review and to the appropriate officials -- President Obama and Congress.  The FTC states that the proposal is "solely for the purposes of discussion", though it expects aspects of it could work their way in to legislation.

The most suggestion on the list is a proposal to tax all digital electronics, including, but not limited to -- iPads, iPods, iPhones, laptops, desktop PCs, Macs, netbooks, Zunes, Sansas, Creative MP3 players, digital cameras, video cameras, Android smart phones, Nintendo DS's, PSP Go's, Xbox 360s, Wiis, and the PS3.

The 5 percent federal tax, along with applicable state taxes, would bump total tax on these items to 10 percent or more in many states. 

The proposal would suck in $25 per $500 spent on electronics goodness.  The government would "redistribute" the $4B USD it hopes to haul in from the proposal to struggling print news businesses, who have seen their ad revenue drop 40 percent in the last decade as advertising has made the leap to the internet.

The full list of recommendations is available here [PDF].  Feel free to contact your Senators and Representatives and give them your thoughts.

Even if the federal consumer electronics tax never gets the legislative green light, state governments should help pick up the slack.  Nationwide there's a wealth of measures looking to tax digital downloads such as iTunes tracks, video game downloads from Valve, and more.  Critics say the laws will drive people to piracy, but advocates say they will allow the government to harvest much needed funds to pay for roads, schools, and police forces.

Update: June 4, 2010 3:38 p.m. EST-
Our FTC contact graciously pointed out that there were some inaccuracies with this report and other reports concerning this story.  The FTC itself did not propose this suggestion.  Rather it compiled a list of suggestions.  Among these suggestions was the discussed proposal to tax consumer electronics.

We are trying to dig up exactly who made the suggestion.  A number of high profile parties contributed suggestions on all ends of the political spectrum -- from Arianna Huffington to Ruper Murdoch.  We'll let you know if we find out exactly who made this curious proposal.

Update 2: June 4, 2010 5:30 p.m. EST-
The FTC source who contacted us claimed that the FTC itself did not originate that statement, which was published in an FTC report on the topic (indeed the report itself makes this claim as well).  However, they could not provide us a source for the statement.  The document itself mentions a mysterious "Id. at 209-11" as being the source.

We could not divine what exactly that meant.  The document itself is not 209 pages long.  Nor is there a section 209 in it.  Nor is there a 209th source listed.

Our FTC contact did send us this link, which he says contains the links to the speakers' presentations which contained the information in the report.  However, looking through every one of these presentations, none of them contained reference to a tax on consumer electronics (search tax in the PDF, to see for yourself).

Update 3:  June 4, 2010 7:00 p.m. EST-
Whoops, apparently we need to brush up on our legalspeak.  Id means to refer to the previous source, so with that we were able to establish the source -- pages 209-211 of "The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again " by Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols.  McChesney is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.  And Nichols is a blogger and activist.  He writes for The Nation.  His blog bio can be found here.

So at last we know who's suggesting the nation embrace a tax hike on consumer electronics.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
what?
By danobrega on 6/4/2010 11:34:40 AM , Rating: 5
Someone doesn't know how to make their business work on the new century so the government is going to tax people to let these people continue to do work nobody cares about?




RE: what?
By mmntech on 6/4/2010 11:45:14 AM , Rating: 5
You mean just like how the government taxes blank CDs to bailout the music industry?


RE: what?
By xSauronx on 6/4/2010 4:08:46 PM , Rating: 5
the US government does not tax blank cds. The canadian government, iirc, does.

I agree with the sentiment that old media doesnt deserve to be bailed out. Their struggling business is just a by product of technological improvement. Just because a business is old and thrived for a long time in the past does NOT mean that it deserves to remain as such.


RE: what?
By sprockkets on 6/4/2010 8:19:03 PM , Rating: 5
FYI, music CDRs sold in the US have a levy on them that goes back to the losers at the RIAA. Those were required back in the day for consumer CD duplicators or recorders. Computers were always exempt from that rule.


RE: what?
By zonkie on 6/5/2010 4:38:16 AM , Rating: 5
If it's got more than one "update", you blew it!


RE: what?
By Fracture on 6/7/2010 9:37:06 AM , Rating: 3
The last update made me sad. I'm embarrased as a U of I ecomonics graduate that this professor obviously did not consult anyone for the economic perspective, but I suspect his views have more to do with communication and journalism than they do with economics, law, or computer science.


RE: what?
By roboray on 6/6/2010 12:42:46 AM , Rating: 5
Which is why nobody bought the discs labeled "for music" and everyone bought the identical but cheaper discs labeled "for data" instead to record their music on.


RE: what?
By knutjb on 6/5/2010 12:00:37 PM , Rating: 3
This is nothing more than central planning designed to keep one party in power. They are failing in part from their POV and failure to adapt to new markets. Let'em go down.

They need money to fund businesses that cannot survive in the open market to get their message out. The other part is to control all you see on all media. Vain I know but that is where they are headed.

I didn't put these socialist clowns in power, I know better. If you don't compare what the say with their actions you deserve it. Unfortunately the rest us don't deserve it but still pay the price. If you think socialist is too strong of word do some research on who these people are and you might just change your mind. Venezuela here we come... BTW Mark Lloyd at the FCC praised Chavez for his government take over of an irresponsible media to get his message out to the people.


RE: what?
By MadMan007 on 6/5/2010 1:58:38 PM , Rating: 1
If by one party you mean the Republicrats, or Democans, then yeah. It's not just the far left that 'takes over media,' the far right does it too, and the two party system in the USA is a joke. Anyone who wants or has dictatorial power wants to control the media.


RE: what?
By knutjb on 6/5/2010 2:38:03 PM , Rating: 4
It's neither. It's the Progressives that plague both parties but really are for something different. The Progressives are seeping into all aspects of the federal gov with this administration.

Read about Woodrow Wilson and his cronies to get a clue of who the are and what they want or just keep your head in the sand. You are free to do that for now...


RE: what?
By Chaser on 6/6/2010 4:00:45 PM , Rating: 3
The two parties could not be more divided today than in almost any time in history. If you can't see that you're an idiot.

And don't get me started on a third party. Third parties are pathetic jokes and their leaders are clowns. A third party vote; your BIG statement of voting for one of these loser gets people like Al Frankin in office. Yeah. Big move! Big statement. Way to go.


RE: what?
By BansheeX on 6/7/2010 12:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
You are a moron. There's what people say, and then there's what people do, and Republicans have historically fought SOME reckless spending when it's necessary to regain power, but spend like drunken sailors the moment they retake power on such rhetoric. Bush signed a medicare prescription drug bill underfunded by 20 trillion, started a couple of trillion dollar wars, bailed out failed banks and passed stimulus spending. You think Palin is any more sincere than Bush was when campaigning against this stuff? She is just as much the soulless money-grubbing puppet Bush was. She literally resigned her governorship to make millions off a book. People in this country couldn't spot sincerity if it bit them in the a$$, they time and time again vote for smooth talking pussyfooters who take millions from businesses if it will help them win.

I assure you that someone like a Ron Paul would slash and burn, but this country is well beyond the point of forsaking the short term in order to fix the long term. This country does not want to make tough decisions, they are as complicit and hopeful of nonsense economics as a Bernie Madoff investor.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 6:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
I see the fanboys were none too happy with your truth, but then politcal stand routinely trumps truth and wisdom for the non-thinkers.

I see dumb people.


RE: what?
By MrBlastman on 6/4/2010 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 4
It is called indirect press manipulation. If they give money to the print media, it is essentially a form of bribery which puts them in their pocket to push the White House's agenda down our throats.

A government run media is a giant leap towards Socialism.


RE: what?
By heffeque on 6/4/2010 12:14:47 PM , Rating: 5
I really don't know what's worse... government owning the media or media owning the government.

Media and government should always be two separate things, but sadly that's too good to be true.


RE: what?
By quiksilvr on 6/4/2010 2:10:08 PM , Rating: 5
Let's just hope this doesn't get passed. There is no doubt about it; piracy will go rampant if this federal tax is passed.


RE: what?
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 2:44:24 PM , Rating: 4
The really sad thing about that is then the government can go after downloaders for tax evasion which would make downloading a few pirated songs a felony instead of a civil crime.


RE: what?
By rcc on 6/10/2010 6:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps that should get written in the Constitution after the next revolution?? Separation of Media and State?


RE: what?
By TheRequiem on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 12:35:36 PM , Rating: 4
I'll take a guess that you are an 11 year old that posted this while taking a break from your 23.5 hr sessions of playing HALO...?


RE: what?
By xpax on 6/4/2010 1:00:55 PM , Rating: 5
Don't wait. Start one. It's about time we overthrew any government who puts the agenda of lobbyists and corporations ahead of the people who actually elected them.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By Digimonkey on 6/4/2010 4:19:38 PM , Rating: 3
That's asinine. What if you just don't care to own land?


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By Digimonkey on 6/4/2010 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe we can take it a step further and say you actually need to own land, be married, have kids, and maybe serve at least a year or two in the military to be able to vote? Putting any kind of limitation like that on a citizens ability to vote is stifling that persons freedom.

Basically what you said is if I decide to live in an apartment in a city, I must give up my right to vote, because obviously I can't make informed decisions.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By Digimonkey on 6/4/2010 5:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
At this point I'll assume you're just a forum troll. Good day sir.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By CyborgTMT on 6/5/2010 6:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Ok I'll take the bait....

quote:
I'm also a highly educated gun toting redneck


So that would mean you made it to 5th grade then...


RE: what?
By Gio6518 on 6/5/2010 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 1
i think 6th grade, graduated from Oxford (the school next to where the Ox ford across the river)

just shocked he posted a pic

http://nicedoggie.net/images/jethro_bodine.jpg


RE: what?
By rcc on 6/10/2010 6:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
: ) That would be an armed 5th grader if so, smile into the scope pls.


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 5:06:00 PM , Rating: 3
Deep down, I think you would have supported the Monarchy of King George. You support cutting out the poor from the vote, people would not be able to vote if they lived in an apartment, condo, retirement home etc. unless they owned land. A person making $40k a year, who lives in a condo is in NO WAY living off your tax money.

I reject your opinion and everything it implies.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 5:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Ah yes, If I had read your post (which I did) I would have seen the light and agreed to relegate our fine country into a caste based quasi-feudalistic mish mash of utter BS.


RE: what?
By Jeffk464 on 6/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 6:02:15 PM , Rating: 2
Is it fair that citizens are allowed to vote? Yea, it is.

Your corporate analogy fails for a couple reasons.

A) any government that runs itself like a company is either 1) communist or 2) fascist.

B) because the majority is still needed to make the vote, a single individual off the street is not dictating policy in America.

I agree, it sounds crazy; because you didn't even think it through before posting.


RE: what?
By Targon on 6/4/2010 6:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
That is not true. If the government were run like a company, the idea of helping the citizens better themselves would be seen as an investment if done properly. From that point of view, the government should also only spend money to help increase tax revenues.

Now, you can look at this from different angles, but it still comes down to a basic idea that the government is there to protect citizens. If the government is spending money in foolish ways, or spending too much for what they get, that is a problem.

I agree that there should be some way to filter the idiots from voting, because those who do not understand the issues will never understand who to vote for. If someone can't read a newspaper(let alone anything online), and they can't understand what is being talked about on the news, why should that person have the right to vote(hell, the person might not be able to figure out how to vote for the person he/she wants to vote for).

So, how about a test where someone needs to be able to debate the issues before voting for the person he/she feels would be the best choice for government office?


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Digimonkey on 6/4/2010 6:23:27 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, a test about understanding relevant issues before you can vote would be ideal. However in reality they already have a tough enough time counting votes accurately, so my guess is this would fail hard.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 7:02:24 PM , Rating: 2
Slow down there, turbo. We have a representative democracy, there isn't just some random guy that walks in off the street (like your pisspoor analogy stated) who is dictating policy over all of the "board members"(read; majority). I don't support wellfare of any kind, your assertions are invalid and deluded.

You don't understand my post because you lied about being highly educated.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 7:34:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You don't understand my post because you lied about being highly educated.

I don't agree with you, therefor I am uneducated? LoL, nice one!


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 7:43:19 PM , Rating: 3
No, that you misinterpreted my post, asserted some set of values that in no way reflects my philosophy, and failed to address the point is how I made that summation.


RE: what?
By theArchMichael on 6/5/2010 12:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
COLD...BLOOOODED!


RE: what?
By thurston on 6/5/2010 11:45:44 PM , Rating: 1
ClownPuncher this is the kind of guy that gives you conservatives a bad name. He's going to give Reclaimer77 some serious competition in the right wing nut job category.


RE: what?
By Belegost on 6/4/2010 7:21:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
That's exactly what we need, degenerates in charge of society....


Well, not really. But I'm not such a self-righteous, over-inflated, arsehole as to believe that my viewpoint is so superior as to necessitate banning you from voting.

I just keep up the hope that degenerates like you remain a minority.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/4/2010 8:41:08 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I don't believe people should have the right to vote unless they can prove responsibility.
I think it should be the other way around - people should have the right to vote until they prove themselves irresponsible. Then perhaps they can regain their right to vote by proving they are responsible (probably by not being irresponsible for a certain period).

Now, more questions about your questionable idea:

1. Say I live in Manhattan, but own land in BFE Utah. Where do I vote?
2. Is there a minimum amount of land, or can political action groups give away a square inch to every person to get them registered to vote?
3. Do I have to buy the land with money I've earned myself, or can retards from wealthy families vote because they've got land?
4. Won't this requirement artificially inflate the value of land, distorting the economy?
5. Is the weight of my vote based on how much land I own (after all, if I've got more stake in the government functioning well, I should have more say, just like in a corporation)?
6. How do you demonstrate land ownership for the purposes of registering to vote?

These questions probably don't have to be answered, since the point is more to demonstrate that any means test is going to have issues with where to draw the line, whether it achieves the desired ends, and whether it can be practicably implemented without undue opportunity for abuse of the system.

The biggest question, though, will always be whether it achieves the desired ends. Mainly because reasonable people will always disagree about what the desired ends really are. How much land is really sufficient to show you have a stake in government? Is land really only owned by people competent to vote?


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Piiman on 6/5/2010 9:28:42 AM , Rating: 2
And how prey tell does owning land prove you have any knowledge of the issues or prove you're responsible? All your stupid rule would do is create a business that sells 1 mm squares of land so a person could claim to be a land owner and vote. Let me guess you have a "land for voting rights" business all lined up and ready to go?! LOL
No it is you sir that is the retard perhaps you would feel more at home in Iran? Because all owning land does is make you a land owner it doesn't make you smart/er, it doesn't make you knowledgeable and it doesn't make you responsible. seriously isn't our economy f'ed up now becasue a bunch of land owners aren't paying for their land? Man your funny and possible a commie. :-)


RE: what?
By orbster556 on 6/5/2010 4:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree that ownership of land does not necessarily imply that the owner will produce a more prudent voter, it does ensure that the person voting has some "skin" in the game.

I think that the original poster who suggested that we limit the franchise to those who own property does not understand the original reason for the restriction. Although it is true there was the general feeling that landowners were superior, the principal rationale for the rule was that it would be landowners who paid taxes--whenever they were levied--as there was yet personal income taxes. It is rather obvious that individuals not owning land, if permitted to vote, would readily levy taxes on landowners as the non-landowners never had to worry about paying those taxes. Moreover, as the number of landowners was always less than the number of non-landowners, the landowners were always at the whim of the non-landowners.

I would certainly reject any restriction of the franchise based on landownership; I probably would support some sort of restriction or cumulative voting based on taxable income. If there can be "no taxation without representation," I believe there ought to be no representation without taxation


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Steve1981 on 6/6/2010 12:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should a leech of the system have voting rights?


Even a leech has voting rights because this nation was founded on the principle that all men were created equal; all men have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Denying any citizen (not deemed incompetent, 18+, etc) the right to representation seriously erodes their rights and is a path to tyranny.

Am I enamored by the idea that the dregs of society have the same voting rights as I do? Of course not. But I understand why it is necessary.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/2010 6:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
all men have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Couldn't be more correct!
quote:
Denying any citizen (not deemed incompetent, 18+, etc) the right to representation seriously erodes their rights and is a path to tyranny.

Define citizen...? Just because someone lives in a country does not define them as a citizen. 50% of the people in the country (not included the millions of illegals) do not pay taxes. So non-tax paying citizens that DO NOT SUPPORT this nation should have voting rights? I don't think so!! In fact, people that do not pay their fair tax burden are not doing their part in a productive society; so by reason, they are the opposition to citizens. No-one has come up with any good reason that these people should be allowed to make national decisions.


RE: what?
By Steve1981 on 6/6/2010 7:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Define citizen...?


A man, woman, or child recognized as such by the US government.

quote:
So non-tax paying citizens that DO NOT SUPPORT this nation should have voting rights? I don't think so!


I agree with your idea that every man and woman has a duty to take care of themselves and contribute to the society they are a part of via taxes.

However, a nation that prides itself on freedom and opportunities for all cannot disenfranchise its own citizenry, tax paying or not. Doing so risks obliterating that freedom and opportunity for a wide swath of the population. It is as much a path to tyranny as reverting to simple mob rule. I understand your fear of the latter, but in the end that is why we have a strong state and federal constitutions that enumerates what our government can and cannot do.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/2010 8:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, a nation that prides itself on freedom and opportunities for all cannot disenfranchise its own citizenry, tax paying or not. Doing so risks obliterating that freedom and opportunity for a wide swath of the population. It is as much a path to tyranny as reverting to simple mob rule.


So you think that non-tax paying people being denied a vote would result to mob rule? That is plain out stupid. Maybe we need to re-evaluate what constitutes being a US citizen then. Either that, or we need to rename our country to "Free Handouts States of America".

Anit-citizens should not be allowed to vote. End of story.


RE: what?
By Steve1981 on 6/6/2010 9:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So you think that non-tax paying people being denied a vote would result to mob rule?


You didn't understand what I wrote. I stated that non-tax paying people being denied a vote is tyranny, much like the tyranny that you fear of simple mob rule, ie the have not's voting themselves wealth. I am not stating that disenfranchisement will lead to such simple mob rule, only that both lead to tyranny, albeit of different forms.

quote:
Either that, or we need to rename our country to "Free Handouts States of America".


I'm not stating that they should be allowed to vote themselves handouts, as in simple mob rule either. I'm simply stating that if a nation holds freedom as its ideal, every citizen must have a voice, be it a responsible tax payer or not. Anything less and you might as well throw freedom and opportunity out the door.

quote:
Anit-citizens should not be allowed to vote. End of story.


I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree then.


RE: what?
By Gungel on 6/7/2010 7:58:38 AM , Rating: 3
Bill Gates just bought the whole state of Washington with all his money. He will be the only one that is able to vote in Washington because there is no more land available. Any one else that owned an acre sold it to Bill Gates for a huge profit.
Quadrillity you're nuts.


RE: what?
By just4U on 6/7/2010 11:18:52 AM , Rating: 2
"50% of the people in the country (not included the millions of illegals) do not pay taxes."

-------

I don't live in the States but here in Canada everything is taxed so even for those who don't pay income tax they still pay taxes. It's impossible to avoid them as there are sales taxes and hidden ones on just about every single item we buy.

Is it not the same in the States?


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/7/2010 7:54:46 PM , Rating: 2
We do have sales taxes etc, but it's more of a moot point when that same 50% are more than likely on welfare, so they either pay the taxes with taxes, or they get back money (that they didn't pay in) during tax returns. And yes, before anyone asks, I said that correctly... There are people out there that get returns after not having paid one cent in.


RE: what?
By rcc on 6/10/2010 6:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Or get more back than they paid in tax..... I mean WTF over??


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/2010 7:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And how prey tell does owning land prove you have any knowledge of the issues or prove you're responsible?
Owning land ensures that you are a tax payer and own stake in this country (~50 percent of Americans do not pay taxes). Owning a portion of the country is part of being a citizen. Paying taxes is also part of being a citizen.
quote:
All your stupid rule would do is create a business that sells 1 mm squares of land so a person could claim to be a land owner and vote. Let me guess you have a "land for voting rights" business all lined up and ready to go?! LOL

As said previously, probably 1 acre to 1/2 acre would be a happy medium.
quote:
Because all owning land does is make you a land owner it doesn't make you smart/er, it doesn't make you knowledgeable and it doesn't make you responsible.

Being knowledgeable has nothing to do with this change since there always be idiots present. It's all about being an accountable tax payer.

Maybe it would have been better had I said:

1. Owning land automatically makes you eligible for voting.
2. Paying a certain ratio of income to taxes also makes you eligible.

What I find sickening is that most of you are perfectly content with the gov tit suckers having the "right" to vote. They are absolutely the anti-citizen, and you all are happy with this.


RE: what?
By Fracture on 6/7/2010 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 3
Land ownership is not the answer, and I can provide a few reasons why its not:

1) Condominium-type ownership does not include ownership of the land beneath it. This would create an entire class of people that own their own homes, pay taxes, and can't vote.

2) Supposing that population always increases and all land is owned, the price of that land is consistently increasing as well. This becomes a pay-to-play scenario whereby voters have to pass a certain wealth threshold.

3) The citizen that has nothing counts just as much as the person that has next to nothing. The person that has $999,999 counts just as much as the person that has a million. Any restriction on why one person should have to pay a higher amount of their disposable income just to meet an arbitrary threshold to vote is biased and unconstitutional. Remember that the cost of living is fairly constant and becomes more of a burden to those near the poverty line, and that they may have no more money to pay after these expenses.

I understand your desire to support and strengthen the nation, but leave liberties seperate from taxes - the price for our freedom was already paid.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/6/2010 1:40:34 AM , Rating: 1
Except for blacks in Florida in 2000 when the country got Bush-whacked.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/10/2010 11:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
Big surprise I got rated down by the KKK.


RE: what?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/4/2010 8:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
New law - you aren't allowed to vote.

What you are essentially suggesting is that the government should be run for the wealthy. The rich can offer the right price to eventually buy most everyone else out of their land in order to concentrate power in their hands. On the up-side, with only a few voters in each election, issues of fraud or miscounts would disappear!

You also overlook the fact that the right to vote is the fundamental safeguard of the rest of our rights. The Constitution only guards our rights because it hasn't been amended to remove those rights - and that's only because the voters would have to approve those changes. When land-owners are asked if the right to own guns should really apply to those poor people who keep menacingly looking over their fences and eying their money, how do you think they'll vote? When they get sick of listening to those people complain about how much life sucks, why not take away their right to free speech? And if they don't own where they live, they certainly shouldn't be expect privacy there!

Ultimately, if you're worried about large corporations having too much power, then you really don't want to make the change you're suggesting.


RE: what?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/5/2010 11:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You also overlook the fact that the right to vote is the fundamental safeguard of the rest of our rights.


So what happens when people keeping voting for this movement that seems determined to destroy those rights?


RE: what?
By someguy123 on 6/4/2010 7:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
A more reasonable solution would be to not allow people on welfare to vote.

I know it sounds harsh but if they're in such a financially poor position I think staying well informed is the least of their worries.


RE: what?
By hughlle on 6/5/10, Rating: -1
RE: what?
By chagrinnin on 6/4/2010 8:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Acorn Employee: Get your free land here! Free land! Step right up and get your 1 inch parcel and become a registered voter! Free land here! :P


RE: what?
By jevans64 on 6/5/2010 2:50:39 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know about land ownership being a voting eligibility requirement.

I think that able-bodied folks receiving long-term government assistance ( Welfare, WIC, etc. ) should have their right to vote stripped.

Do you think politicians would pander like they do IF there weren't any votes in it? I bet HALF of the government assistance programs would vanish over night.

Maybe we could go back to the good old days and make SLAVE OWNERSHIP a vote requirement. LOL


RE: what?
By Jeffk464 on 6/6/2010 3:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
I'm afraid that ship has sailed. The united states is pretty much ruled by lobbyists.


RE: what?
By StraightCashHomey on 6/4/2010 1:02:10 PM , Rating: 3
Police Officers.. Fire Fighters.. who the fuck needs those idiots?


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 3:11:49 PM , Rating: 1
strange how no-one understood your sarcasm...


RE: what?
By Jeffk464 on 6/6/2010 3:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously in CA way pay prison gaurds $150,000 a year and give them excellent retirement and benefits. I think it would be cheaper just to lose money to criminals rather then pay these leaches salaries.


RE: what?
By arazok on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By drycrust3 on 6/4/2010 4:12:49 PM , Rating: 1
Go and read the Book of Judges in the Bible. That is about a society where there was no government. People could do what they liked, and as long as they were good at marketing so that they could convince the general populous they were in the right, they would get away with horrendous deeds, even genocide.
Like it or not, having a government and laws and courts and taxes and all the other stuff is better than no government, no laws, no courts, and none of the other stuff.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/6/2010 1:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
"Like it or not, having a government and laws and courts and taxes and all the other stuff is better than no government, no laws, no courts, and none of the other stuff. "

Good luck convincing a republican of that, it goes against every opportunistic gene in their body, which is all of them.


RE: what?
By Nutzo on 6/7/2010 11:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
You evidently have no idea what Republicans stand for.

They are not against all laws, Libertarians would be much closer to that.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 6:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
"You evidently have no idea what Republicans stand for.

They are not against all laws, Libertarians would be much closer to that. "

Yeah they're against any laws and limits on themselves, it's totally OK if it happens to other people. Same philosophy with Wall St bankers.


RE: what?
By JDub02 on 6/4/2010 12:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
We're already there. The media, for the most part, willingly jumped into the pocket of the regime. They parrot the regime's talking points and pass it off as journalism. That's why they're broke. Most people don't want to pay for propaganda.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/6/2010 1:44:40 AM , Rating: 2
"Most people don't want to pay for propaganda. "

Why should they? Faux News is free.


RE: what?
By FITCamaro on 6/6/2010 9:17:10 AM , Rating: 2
I love it when people talk about how dumb Fox News is when in the past year and a half, there have been numerous times when the liberal media did not report on issues that made Obama look bad and if not for Fox News reporting on it, then the majority of the people wouldn't have heard about it. I saw no such thing happening when Bush was in office and Fox News not reporting on something that made him look bad.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 6:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
The single most clear cut issue with Faux is quite simple to comprehend if in fact you have synaptic activity. Both sides of the news are biased, but only Faux claims to be fair and balanced. Of course that would appear to be true if one is already leaning to the right, but wether you are or aren't they 24 hour editorializing is not fair and balanced.

The best way to see just how messed up Faux is is to watch Out-Foxed AND to ignore all the biased commentary. The Faux clowns, with their ridiculous "Some say....." attacks, are the biggest joke ever unleashed on the US people and would make PT Barnum quite proud.

You're far better off reading "The Economist" than watching Faux if in fact you're a true believer in conservative principals, as opposed to just being able to scream "LOSER!" like your great American mentor Homer Simspon.


RE: what?
By Exodite on 6/4/2010 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
A government run media is a giant leap towards Socialism.


I think you mean totalitarianism.

I live in a country where 'socialist' values are still held in high regard, namely Sweden, and I can assure you that government run media is nowhere to be found on the 'socialist' agenda.

However, that's pretty incidental to this issue.

It's long been obvious that the press need to request payment for their online services, the can't really survive while maintaining good journalism on ad revenue alone.

I, for one, wouldn't mind paying for a membership to online news. It makes as much sense as paying for the print representation after all.

That said it's not the task of the government to make sure the press gets payed, I'm confident they're able to handle that on their own.

A taxation such as this would only encourage people to actually demand free access to news, since they have already payed for it when purchasing the device(s).


RE: what?
By MegaHustler on 6/4/2010 3:59:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I live in a country where 'socialist' values are still held in high regard, namely Sweden, and I can assure you that government run media is nowhere to be found on the 'socialist' agenda.


I guess that depends on your definition. Sveriges Television (SVT) was created by the Swedish government, its leaders are appointed by the Swedish government and its sole income is a government mandated tax on television sets. But the government does technically not run SVT directly, that is correct.


RE: what?
By boobo on 6/4/2010 4:28:02 PM , Rating: 1
In all fairness, all SVT channels together don't add up to 40% of the viewership. It's very high for a public broadcaster but there is still plenty of room for independent media in Sweden.

It's hard to say that the state controls the media when over more than half the viewership freely watches other channels. What is proposed here seems much more serious since the state sponsorship on printed media would be broader and less open to scrutiny.


RE: what?
By morphologia on 6/4/2010 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
It's not really Socialism...it's the government helping an obsolete industry limp lamely along for the sake of jobs, all at the expense of the populace. Besides, left-wing governments have hardly cornered the market on media dominance. Look at Iran, right-wing capital of the world.

Would you be defending this maneuver if McPalin had won? I wonder...


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 4:58:13 PM , Rating: 1
The dude just bashed government bailouts, and he is an Obamite? WORLD, YOU GOT SOME 'SPLAINING TO DO


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 5:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
Using "right-wing" and "McPalin" paints a pretty good picture of a kool-aid drinker to me.


RE: what?
By cruisin3style on 6/4/2010 3:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused. Would all of this money go to Fox News, the only unbiased and not severely left-leaning news organization????

Jokes aside, I think this proposal is absolutely retarded.


RE: what?
By kattanna on 6/4/2010 3:16:47 PM , Rating: 3
oh, this could be even worse then you think.

think about it.. when ever has the government stopped when it has introduced a new tax.

right now it might only be on electronics, but if it passes, just how long do you think it will be until more items get a fed tax as well?

and if it passes do you not think the econuts will not want it to cover everything to help reign in americas evil consumption levels?

and what about every other special interest group...

these thoughts should be giving you nightmares


RE: what?
By morphologia on 6/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 3:31:10 PM , Rating: 5
Another moronic post brought to you buy morphologia.

quote:
Special interest groups like the Westboro Baptists? Or like Halliburton and KBR? Or maybe you mean Focus on the Fallacy?

I like how you take the worst samples from a larger society and paste it out to be the standard for all.

And you whole rant about conservatives... I would like to know sir: What the hell is wrong with CONSERVING the US CONSTITUTION? That's what us conservatives do. We preserve what was put in place since the very beginning. Voters like you are what's destroying this country.


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 5:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Conservatives definitely don't always protect the constitution. It was indeed the conservative movement that changed the constitution and Federally banned the sale and consumption of alcohol.

Opposition to the separation of church and state regularly comes from the conservatives as well.

There are many infractions, though the progressives are usually the worst offenders.

I'm of the opinion that the Libertarians, particularly those of the Jefferson school of thought tend to honor the constitution much more than any of the recognizable parties.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 5:30:18 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Conservatives definitely don't always protect the constitution. It was indeed the conservative movement that changed the constitution and Federally banned the sale and consumption of alcohol.

Nothing is perfect. I consider myself a conservative and don't agree with prohibition.
quote:
Opposition to the separation of church and state regularly comes from the conservatives as well.

I believe in the freedom of religion is this great nation. I also understand that men and women of Christian faith founded this country. That is an indisputable fact; get over it.
quote:
I'm of the opinion that the Libertarians, particularly those of the Jefferson school of thought tend to honor the constitution much more than any of the recognizable parties.

Good for you, but remind me when which political party that I associate with? That's right, none. Conservatism is an ideology and set of principals. I happen to believe word for word what the great George Washington said about the dangers of political parties.


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 5:34:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I believe in the freedom of religion is this great nation. I also understand that men and women of Christian faith founded this country. That is an indisputable fact; get over it.


Somebody needs to go back and tell the Founders that, because they are the ones who presented the idea of separation of church and state. Most of them were also Masonic deists, get over it.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 5:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you knew what entails as "freedom of religion" you would understand that the founding fathers did realize the ramifications of not having degrees of separation between church and state. That DID NOT however mean that the church should be banned from influencing political decisions.


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 6:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
Well, if you were raised a christian, were taught christian beliefs and morals and run for office, there isn't a problem.

If the church lobbies for laws which violate that separation, there is.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 6:26:08 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on what laws they are lobbying for. Killing babies is a great example. Abortion, no matter what side you are on, is the physical ending of life. What would be so wrong with Lobbying for laws against this?


RE: what?
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 7:05:37 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing, but those laws will be dictated by the Supreme Court, rather than the Church. You also don't need religion to be opposed to abortion.

Like it or not, religious groups are special interest groups.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 1
I never said any church should govern. I only said that the church should fortify morals.


RE: what?
By Piiman on 6/5/2010 10:14:10 AM , Rating: 2
Who's ?


RE: what?
By ekv on 6/5/2010 5:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
I know this is far afield, but where do you get this term "separation of church and state" from?


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/6/2010 1:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
"What the hell is wrong with CONSERVING the US CONSTITUTION?"

Oh W certainly did a great job doing just that.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/6/2010 7:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Brilliant post you made there. More kool-aid inebriation I guess. Name some things that "W" did to hinder our Constitution that Obama hasn't done 10 fold.


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 6:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
I won't be able to overcome your premeditate ignorance. Try a criminal justice course, maybe they can get through your intentional brick wall to logic.


RE: what?
By Quadrillity on 6/8/2010 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
You could have said, "I don't know". But no, you just had to open your mouth and prove your idiocy by not being able to answer my simple question.

You have obviously been spoon fed to believe that Bush is the white devil that "dun took all er freedums away! Oh noes!"


RE: what?
By YashBudini on 6/10/2010 12:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
I see you didn't enroll in the course.

No surprise. Ignorance is bliss.


RE: what?
By Uncle on 6/6/2010 2:16:29 AM , Rating: 3
This is all about "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours." This has been going on for a long time. If you were a politician and were wanting to get elected or re-elected which media group would you want on your side. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that with globalization theirs only a few owners that you have to kiss ass, so that you always look good to the public. With the consolidation that has happened in the media, when was the last time anyone who owned one of the majors got lambasted by anyone in government.Not to very often and never during election years. I can see the tax drain on the taxpayers helping the news paper owners give Obama a favorable light, the more they get the brighter the light. Besides its a lot cheaper for the politicians to use taxpayers money rather then their own for good electioneering.


RE: what?
By Jeffk464 on 6/6/2010 3:20:09 PM , Rating: 3
Oh hell no, stop trying to put in hidden taxes. If they are going to add taxes have some balls and do it where everyone see's it, its called income taxes.


RE: what?
By Jeffk464 on 6/6/2010 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
The market has spoken, news must go digital.


RE: what?
By Hiawa23 on 6/7/2010 8:20:25 AM , Rating: 2
I am not down with this at all. Any business model that can't be profitable should be allowed to go out of business. Rarely do I look at a newspaper other than Sunday coupons, in this electronic age where most info you can get from the internet. As an avid gamer who enjoys my Xbox PS3 & Wii, & many other devices, it should not be the fed govt who intstitute this.


Jason does it again...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/4/2010 11:54:47 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the biggest reason I think this discussion piece was glossed over by our little Jason is that the real meat of it is to tighten copyright on news items specifically to prevent news aggregators like Dailytech from reaping the benefits of the hard news agencies. The one part about taxing consumer electronics was literally one suggestion taking up one sentence is a 48 page report - with dozens of suggestions for raising revenue to CONTINUE to support news agencies, as the fed has done for centuries. In fact, online news agencies are part of the definition of news agency, so it is not just print media that would be subsidized, but electronic media as well.

Just click the link and read the piece for yourself.




RE: Jason does it again...
By danobrega on 6/4/2010 12:05:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
to prevent news aggregators like Dailytech from reaping the benefits of the hard news agencies.


Welcome to the new century. Can't handle it? Close your business. In the past century people could and would also share their printed newspapers, talk about the news, etc. Not everyone would buy a newspaper.

Nowadays we have "zee internet", and it seems some businesses are afraid of "zee internet".

You should not tax people for services they do not want and do not need.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Jason does it again...
By Steve1981 on 6/4/2010 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
A functioning democracy needs a functioning press


A functioning democracy needs a functioning independent press, ie one not funded by tax dollars.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/6/10, Rating: 0
RE: Jason does it again...
By Steve1981 on 6/6/2010 11:14:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Try not to conflate funding with management.


Sorry, but the two are inextricably tied. When I pay you to do a job, you do it my way. That a government may not try to exert such control today for altruistic reasons is no guarantee that they will feel the same way tomorrow. An independent press makes such issues much less likely.

quote:
There are a few countries that get it right, by keeping the funding separate from the management. The BBC in the U.K. comes to mind.


Remind me, who appoints the BBC trust? Ohh yes, the Queen on advisement of ministers. Under no circumstances could someone with a bit more...ambition seek to abuse that, right?


RE: Jason does it again...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/7/2010 1:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
First you claim that funding and management are inextricably tied together. Later in the same brief post, you say "a government may not try to exert such control today". Which is it? Are there no exceptions, or are there some exceptions?

quote:
When I pay you to do a job, you do it my way.

I have, on occasion, been paid to do jobs. When I was very young, those jobs typically involved taking and acting on exact instructions regarding what to do and how to do it. When I got a little older, the jobs involved me bringing my own knowledge and expertise to bear on the goal at hand. I was commissioned to do things my way.

The government itself is brimming with people who are paid by the government to act independently of the government. We call these people judges and public criminal defense lawyers, and occasionally special prosecutors or independent commissions. Judges often decide against the government, and criminal defense lawyers always argue against government prosecutors. So your claim that funding is inextricably tied to management is demonstrably false, even in cases of government funding.

quote:
Remind me, who appoints the BBC trust? Ohh yes, the Queen on advisement of ministers. Under no circumstances could someone with a bit more...ambition seek to abuse that, right?

The ministers are elected representatives of the people, and the queen is a ceremonial rubber stamper. So in some indirect sense, U.K. citizens appoint the BBC trust. I guess if the queen decided to be a dictator rather than a ceremonial rubber stamper, then it could be a problem for editorial independence at the BBC. But then, that would be somewhat low on a list of much larger problems that dictatorship entails.

Your claim that funding is inextricably tied to management is demonstrably false. Do advertisers manage editorial boards for all advertiser-funded media outlets? Of course not. On those rare occasions that they do, we call it scandalous, in part because it's so rare. Do subscribers manage editorial boards for all subscription-funded media outlets? Of course not. How could they?

If, as you claim, the editorial management of all media outlets is truly inextricably tied to the funding source, and you want media to be managed independently from its funding, then what you are calling for is, necessarily, unfunded media.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Steve1981 on 6/7/2010 3:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
First you claim that funding and management are inextricably tied together. Later in the same brief post, you say "a government may not try to exert such control today". Which is it? Are there no exceptions, or are there some exceptions?

Whether a government opts to exert direct managerial control over media that it provides funding for or not, the threat that they will is always there. That threat is mitigated with a free and independently funded media.

quote:
When I got a little older, the jobs involved me bringing my own knowledge and expertise to bear on the goal at hand...The government itself is brimming with people who are paid by the government to act independently of the government.


But you're still doing the job you're paid to do, as you are expected to perform it, are you not? Whether or not you are directly micromanaged is not the point. Same goes for judges, defense attorneys, etc. That a judge is paid to be fair and unbiased today is no guarantee that it will be the same way tomorrow without vigilance on the part of the people. Watching over our government is made infinitely easier by an independent media that is there to report their transgressions in a reasonably unbiased manner.

quote:
The ministers are elected representatives of the people


There is no rule stating elected representatives cannot become corrupt.

quote:
But then, that would be somewhat low on a list of much larger problems that dictatorship entails.


Utterly false. Propaganda is a major tool of any totalitarian government. It is arguably the most effective way of creating such a government: the people willingly support it based on the lies they are fed.

quote:
Do advertisers manage editorial boards for all advertiser-funded media outlets?


They cannot because no single advertiser has enough sway. That's the beauty of it.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Steve1981 on 6/7/2010 5:16:45 PM , Rating: 3
To put my argument another way, as you said:

quote:
Government funded media is typically also government run media. That's bad because a government run media is basically just a mouthpiece for the government.


My assertion is that over time, government funded media will turn into government run media. All it takes is the right people taking advantage of the right situation. As you note, that is a bad outcome. The easiest way to avoid this is with a completely independent press.


RE: Jason does it again...
By 3minence on 6/4/2010 1:04:42 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think this tax would pay for the actual reporters going out and digging up facts (I think that's what we both want). I'm tired of people giving their opinions about news, I want people to actually dig up stories and find facts. Unfortunately I think American media is getting away from that. They seem to be more interested in commentary then news. It started with Fox News (imho) but has spread to all the channels now.

Any tax will become just another revenue stream for the politicians to give away to their favorite political supporter.


RE: Jason does it again...
By brshoemak on 6/4/2010 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I don't think this tax would pay for the actual reporters going out and digging up facts (I think that's what we both want). I'm tired of people giving their opinions about news, I want people to actually dig up stories and find facts. Unfortunately I think American media is getting away from that. They seem to be more interested in commentary then news. It started with Fox News (imho) but has spread to all the channels now.


^^ This is the truth. When news stopped being about facts and started being about opinions to gather ratings and 20 hours out of a 24 hour day of a news channel are dedicated to news-tainment shows it, all went to hell.

When did we get so busy in our fast-paced lives that we decide it was easier to let others (with possible agendas) to tell us what to think instead of taking the facts and coming to our own opinions? I know so many people who watch Fox or CNN and are spoon fed opinions which they take as fact and shape their ideology around. People complain about bias in news networks but if people would take the time to get the facts and form their own opinions that bias would make no difference. Of course now you have to search hard to uncover the facts behind any news story - facts don't get ratings.

btw, the FTC can go to hell.


RE: Jason does it again...
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 2:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
I have come to the same conclusions. My biggest peeve is everyone wanting to be first to break a story whether it is correct or not. I would rather have the story a couple days later and have all the facts correct then some breaking news story where noone knows what is going on, only that something happened. Ok if a tornado is coming my direction you can put that up quickly, but unless it is something that will save a life, it can wait.


RE: Jason does it again...
By 3minence on 6/4/2010 4:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
CNN, Where even the weather is breaking news.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Noya on 6/4/2010 2:04:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A functioning democracy...


I'm nearing 30 and this country has been a plutocracy for as long as I can remember, even more so in the last ten years.


RE: Jason does it again...
By YashBudini on 6/6/2010 1:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the combination of both plutocracy and oligarchy is called plutarchy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

That's what we call a democracy.


RE: Jason does it again...
By The Raven on 6/4/2010 1:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Though I can appreciate your point that Mick's post isn't comprehensively covering the proposal in its entirety, I don't care if someone plans to do something stupid as part of a great plan. Get rid of the stupid part. K.I.S.S.
We'll move from there. The financial bailout package included a bunch of pork (stupid) and the healthcare bill included taxes on tanning booths (stupid). Why is this crap in there? Because politicians try to GET as much as they can for their constituents so they can effectively buy votes, when they should be voting as their constituents would (act as a representative).

Anyway, why are they taxing the devices that the news organizations are going to use to distribute their product?

Won't that hurt the news orgs as much as the aggregators?

It seems like they should just tax DailyTech for example (if they can find them! Muahah!) Or they should just outlaw news aggregating lol.

This is just the same as the music industry and how people think that music wouldn't exist if we didn't have the labels or copyright law. The papers will go away, and though the information on the net might not be as reliable (depending on how well people step up to the plate) but the amount of information available now is so much more abundant and easily attainable that it won't matter. So we should just let it go. Screw these taxes. And I'm not reading something that I know I am against. I have a lot of stuff on the internet to sift through ;-)

The fed should stay out of the news business just as much as they should stay out of the auto and banking businesses...which is 100% out imo.


RE: Jason does it again...
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 3:02:39 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Though I can appreciate your point that Mick's post isn't comprehensively covering the proposal in its entirety, I don't care if someone plans to do something stupid as part of a great plan. Get rid of the stupid part. K.I.S.S. We'll move from there. The financial bailout package included a bunch of pork (stupid) and the healthcare bill included taxes on tanning booths (stupid). Why is this crap in there? Because politicians try to GET as much as they can for their constituents so they can effectively buy votes, when they should be voting as their constituents would (act as a representative).


They need to put into place a law as has been done in a few states that all bills must pertain to one topic. Such that you can not include a line to change student loans in a health care bill or fund a bridge on bill to fund the military. Also it needs to be changed so that all laws must be written in common English without the use of Latin verbiage so that the common citizen can understand the bill as written. I think either Washington or Oregon has a measure like this.


RE: Jason does it again...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 3:06:37 PM , Rating: 1
You have outlined one of the MAJOR flaws of the modern US government. I agree 100%. But we will mourn your death, as you will be taken out by government operatives in 3...2...1...

(how dare we petition our goverment?) amirite?


so...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 11:46:31 AM , Rating: 3
I thought ease from excessive taxation was one of the main reasons of why this country was founded. Why do we continually repeat the same mistakes?




RE: so...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/4/2010 12:22:02 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. It was "taxation without representation" that was part of the impetus in declaring independence from England. We're taxed by our elected representatives, so it's not really the same complaint.


RE: so...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 12:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Taxation without representation falls into the larger category of "excessive taxation", so what's your point in trying to correct me?

Taxes are an absolute necessity of a function society. Without strict conservative principals, taxes become a double edged sword. It's too bad that another civil war seems like the ever approaching solution to our problems in the US. Politicians are getting WAY too powerful.


RE: so...
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 3:20:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

quote:
The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

quote:
I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

quote:
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Most bad government has grown out of too much government.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.


Just a few quotes from Thomas Jefferson on how government should be serving the people and not the other way around.

http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/TJ.html Others can be found here.


RE: so...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 3:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.


That one has been the signature of every email account that I own for a while now haha. It's sad that almost no-one nowadays understands where (as a country) we came from and who brought us here. Our founding fathers and mothers were EXTREMELY wise and foretelling.


RE: so...
By ClownPuncher on 6/4/2010 5:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
Here, now we have something to agree on. Thomas Jefferson was quite possibly one of the greatest men to have lived.

The more people read about history, the more people will realize what a mockery we have made of the present.


RE: so...
By Quadrillity on 6/4/2010 6:29:11 PM , Rating: 2
We have common ground? I would have never thought it was possible... CHEERS! haha


RE: so...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/6/2010 5:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxation without representation falls into the larger category of "excessive taxation", so what's your point in trying to correct me?

While I don't doubt that the Colonists found their taxes excessive, the reason for forming a new country was because they had no elected representation in their existing country to whom they could appeal for lower taxation. If they had had unreasonably high taxes, but also elected representatives in England, they could have appealed for lower taxation without going to the trouble of forming a whole new country.

The situation today is that you and I are represented on matters of taxation by officials whom we elect. We are free to vote our minds. Thus, the situation today is taxation with representation.


RE: so...
By JediJeb on 6/6/2010 6:01:30 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is the entrenched bureaucracy that has worked its way into government and the elitist politicians who have worked their magic on the electorate have removed almost all representation from our current government. over 50% of people in the country opposed the health care bill yet it passed, everyone wants lower taxes yet the steadily increase, we want our borders secured yet the government won't even attempt it. No, the government today has become the same thing we declared independence from over 200 years ago yet the change has been so well crafted most of the populace has not noticed.

If you have ever read the book "Animal Farm" you will see that Orwell got it pretty close to right, though most thought he was talking about the communist takeover of Europe. We are losing our freedoms and those few who do take a stand seem to be attacked with much venom in the media. Also look at the updates to this article and see who really thought up the idea, then research them and see what their beliefs are.


RE: so...
By Stacey Melissa on 6/7/2010 3:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
over 50% of people in the country opposed the health care bill yet it passed

That was the Republican spin on the polls, to be sure. I don't remember the exact numbers at this point, but I do recall that a large majority polled were either happy with the bill as is, or were unhappy with it because they wanted something more liberal yet. No opinion gained a plurality, though. So it was true, in a trivial sense, that the majority of Americans were opposed to the bill. There was also the problem that most Americans were uninformed or misinformed about the major provisions of the bill. So when asked whether they supported "the health care bill", many people said no; when asked whether they supported specific major provisions, a lot of those same people said yes. To be fair, it was a long, complicated bill. But the major provisions were repeated for months on end in the media.

quote:
everyone wants lower taxes yet the steadily increase

In a perfect world, I'd want no taxes at all, and everything I wanted would be bountiful and free. But in the real world, I'd settle for a balanced budget, even if that means higher taxes, to a certain extent which hasn't been reached in recent years. And in the real world, I've seen taxes go up and down over the years. Currently, they are a bit down for me and most other Americans.

quote:
we want our borders secured yet the government won't even attempt it

Well, the Arizona government gave it a shot, controversial though it may be. It seems that may be impetus for the federal government to get off their duffs and do something nationally. We'll see.

quote:
The problem is the entrenched bureaucracy that has worked its way into government and the elitist politicians who have worked their magic on the electorate have removed almost all representation from our current government.

Those are the elitists we keep electing. <shrugs> I think it's important to note that our ideas are not necessarily advocated so much in legislative chambers as they are represented in the ballot box. There will be years when a conservative wins election, and my liberal ideas won't be advocated by my legislator. And vice versa for you and years in which a liberal wins. The situation is even more pronounced when dealing with specific issues. Aside from the elected officials themselves, there is no American who is likely to have every single one of their opinions advocated by any elected official. And yet, we are all still represented in a different sense. That is, we are all welcome and encouraged to vote, as well as to petition our elected officials, regardless of whether they share our political affiliations. So it's important to not confuse losing an election with not being represented. Representation doesn't mean advocacy.


RE: so...
By JediJeb on 6/7/2010 5:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So when asked whether they supported "the health care bill", many people said no; when asked whether they supported specific major provisions, a lot of those same people said yes. To be fair, it was a long, complicated bill. But the major provisions were repeated for months on end in the media.


And that is why the majority of people opposed the bill as written. The writers tagged on to many things that were poorly thought out or just outright bad to the parts that were good just to try and get them passed, because they knew there was no way they would pass by themselves. It's funny how the writers of the bill(the bureaucratic layer just below the congress, not congress themselves) exempted themselves from being required to take the national health insurance which congress and other federal workers are required to take. When this congress was elected nobody knew what type of health care bill they would make, so we can't really say that by voting them in we were voicing our opinion on what we wanted, thus if they did not return to their constituents and take their wishes back to Washington and vote on those wishes then we were not truly represented on that vote. I have no problem if the majority does not agree with me on a topic, but I do wish for the majority opinion to be what is truly represented when a vote is taken.
quote:
In a perfect world, I'd want no taxes at all, and everything I wanted would be bountiful and free. But in the real world, I'd settle for a balanced budget, even if that means higher taxes, to a certain extent which hasn't been reached in recent years. And in the real world, I've seen taxes go up and down over the years. Currently, they are a bit down for me and most other Americans.


I can agree to some extent but I would prefer that cost cutting be as much or more of the solution than higher taxes.

quote:
Well, the Arizona government gave it a shot, controversial though it may be. It seems that may be impetus for the federal government to get off their duffs and do something nationally. We'll see.


There is a precedent in the Supreme Court that says that Officers of ICE can ask anyone suspected of being an illegal for their papers at any time with our without a reason other than to simply verify they are legal or illegal. In other words the Arizona law is much less invasive than the Federal laws because the Arizona law requires there be some other cause for the interaction with police before the question can be asked. Arizona is simply saying that they are going to enforce the laws that the Federal government is not enforcing, yet they are demonized by the press and the current administration as being too harsh when the Supreme Court has already ruled that a more harsh rule is perfectly legal.

quote:
Those are the elitists we keep electing. <shrugs> I think it's important to note that our ideas are not necessarily advocated so much in legislative chambers as they are represented in the ballot box.


The problem there is our ideas are not making it from the ballot box into the legislative chambers. When that happens you are not being represented. If the candidate being put before us is chosen by the political/social elite, then our votes count about as much as the votes of the Soviet citizens counted when the Communist ran that country where the government chose the candidates and the elections were just a formality. We are seeing a slight revolt against this in the current primary elections where the candidates chosen by the parties are being defeated. Both parties are seeing this happen so it is not limited to just driving out the current administration. Maybe some voters are finally waking up and looking at what the candidates stand for and are making decisions based on that.


RE: so...
By The Raven on 6/7/2010 11:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair I think it is those who are being taxed that are not being fairly represented that results in excessive taxes.

If the ability to vote was limited to those who believe in the principles that made this country great at its inception, then we wouldn't have these excessive taxes. This goes for many subsidies as well.

And I can also guarantee that the majority of those who pay the majority of the taxes do not agree with what is going on.


RE: so...
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 11:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
"Not exactly. It was "taxation without representation" that was part of the impetus in declaring independence from England."

And thanks to lobbyists we have the same conditions again, so why am I paying taxes? Only the lobbying corporations have representation.


How does this make sense?
By Flunk on 6/4/2010 11:35:28 AM , Rating: 4
Why exactly are they proposing financing private enterprises with Tax dollars gained from a totally-unrelated industry?

This entire idea sounds like it was though up by an 85 year old man who is afraid of technology but doesn't understand how to use it.




RE: How does this make sense?
By HotFoot on 6/4/2010 11:37:22 AM , Rating: 2
We should add a tax to all automobiles and pass the funds from that to horses and buggies, while we're at it.


RE: How does this make sense?
By Blight AC on 6/4/2010 11:42:17 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, print is dead. I certainly don't want to pay to put it on life support.


RE: How does this make sense?
By wiz220 on 6/4/2010 12:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, all I can say is that this is nothing new. Corporate welfare takes a huge chunk of our tax dollars.


RE: How does this make sense?
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 3:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association—the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.


I think Thomas Jefferson agrees with you on that. Taken from the list of quotes I posted in another thread, Jefferson believed that you should not take from one industry to support another and that each should stand of fail on its own merits.


What about steam engines and horse and buggies?
By thinkthis on 6/4/2010 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 5
I'm a democrat who voted for Obama, so I love me some government, but this is just plain ridiculous!

Print is dying because it is being replaced by other mediums. Those mediums create other jobs. This is how industry has evolved for millennial. New ways of doing things replace the old. Meanwhile, old people think we need to hold on to the old methods.

If print can't survive based on its own merits it deserves to die.

Also, sales tax in LA County is already 9.75%. I don't think I can take much more.




RE: What about steam engines and horse and buggies?
By bupkus on 6/4/2010 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
old people think we need to hold on to the old methods.
.
Ignoramus.
Just because you don't respect your parents doesn't mean seniors are to be denigrated as a group.


By thinkthis on 6/4/2010 4:50:05 PM , Rating: 3
Hmm - not sure if you didn't like my tone or if you were actually disagreeing with me.

I have no doubt that in a few decades I'm not going to want anything to change either. That's just part of aging. Why do you think advertisers target young people? Because the average 60 year old person is not going to start using a new kind of detergant when the one they've been using has worked just fine for decades.

Notice how things were always the good ol' days? When you age you get attached to the way things used to be.


By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 11:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
"old people think we need to hold on to the old methods."

Actually that's the definition of conservatism, not only people. Nice try numbnuts.


Save the Wagon Industry!
By ICBM on 6/4/2010 12:25:26 PM , Rating: 5
Everyone is overlooking an industry in dire need of assistance. The wagon industry has taken an enormous hit since the introduction of the automobile. Cars and trucks are putting good, honest wagon builders who have been in business for many decades out of work. Please FTC don't forget the other industries getting destroyed by new ideas/inventions!




RE: Save the Wagon Industry!
By danobrega on 6/4/2010 12:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the typewriters! Save the poor typewriters!


RE: Save the Wagon Industry!
By ICBM on 6/4/2010 3:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
You know, if you think about it, it stretches even further. Horse breeders, feed manufacturers, blacksmiths, bridle makers, etc. Think of all of these poor industries and workers who will be without work!

You know I didn't even think of typewriters, but that is a good analogy as well. We need an additional 10% tax on computers and laser printers to save the typewriter!!!


By bmheiar on 6/4/2010 11:54:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The most controversial part of the proposal is to tax all digital electronics, including, but not limited to -- iPads, iPods, iPhones, laptops, desktop PCs, Macs, netbooks, Zunes, Sansas, Creative MP3 players, digital cameras, video cameras, Android smart phones, Nintendo DS's, PSP Go's, Xbox 360s, Wiis, and the PS3.


Will this supposed tax be placed on individual full complete systems (laptops, desktops, cell phones, consoles, cameras & etc) and/or on the individual components purchased seperately (HDD, CPU, RAM, Motherboards, Video Cards, PS, Cases, Monitors, Keyboards, Mouse, storage drives, storage media, memory cards for cell phones/cameras/MP3 players & etc.) used to built a full complete system? I build my own computer systems, so this would really suck to have an additional 5% added to the price of each individual computer component I buy.




By Kenenniah on 6/4/2010 12:22:33 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize it's the same either way don't you? 5% added to the total for a computer is the same as 5% to each component then added up. Unless you just mean that by building your own you could bypass the 5% alltogether.


By EJ257 on 6/4/2010 1:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing. If they are only taxing the complete computer system you could get at Best Buy and not the individual components you could get off Newegg then we have a nice little loophole for the DIY folks. Sadly I think this will not be the case. Either way I'm against the idea.


Stop them while you still can...
By MegaHustler on 6/4/2010 4:17:36 PM , Rating: 3
Think you got it tough? I live in a country where the sales tax is 25% on everything. No, that's not a typo, it says twenty-five percent. And that's after a personal income tax that makes you feel like a piggy bank that was just robbed.

The concept of cutting government expenses in tough economic times? Completely unfathomable to the socialists. "Do we have less money to spend? Well increase the taxes then!" They know only one way to run a country: 1: Spend more, 2: Tax more, 3: Go to #1.

In my country we now have the situation, that the number of people who receive more from the government than they pay, exceeds the number of people who pay more than they receive. Do you think it's possible to stop them now, when the majority can just vote their way to other peoples money, rather than actually earn their money themselves?

My advise to you: Stop them while you can.




RE: Stop them while you still can...
By iFX on 6/4/2010 5:42:25 PM , Rating: 3
There are already too many people in the US who just want to live their lives like lemmings and suck the government tit. Nationalized health care, welfare, subsidies of all kinds. People don't want to actually have to do anything or be responsible for anything, they want SOMEONE else to use SOMEONE ELSE'S money and do it for them. It's sickening.


Two words for the FTC
By DigitalFreak on 6/4/2010 11:47:10 AM , Rating: 5
Two words for the FTC...

FUCK OFF




Why?
By Aikouka on 6/4/2010 11:45:41 AM , Rating: 2
The Internet has helped spawn a global information age the likes of which we've never seen before. Information is able to be transmitted between parties at great speeds and delivered to the end-user in a fraction of the time compared to older methods. So, why are we trying to save the archaic format of printed media? If printed media is going the way of the dodo simply because it isn't profitable anymore, that tells me that people simply prefer their news in a more timely fashion, and the Internet can provide such in a printable form.

The only issue might be that these businesses will have to go through major restructurings if they wish to drop their printed aspect, which would mean job loss going down the chain. Although, it could create more jobs in the tech sector from the increased Internet use.




RE: Why?
By JediJeb on 6/4/2010 5:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe government doesn't want us to be able to know instantly what they are doing and would rather we read about it from a newspaper they help fund.


Anti-Competition?
By carickw on 6/4/2010 12:48:00 PM , Rating: 4
From the actual document (Pages 2 to 3)
quote:
With the advent of the Internet, advertisers have many more ways in which to reach consumers, including, for example, through a marketer’s own website or through topical websites that relate to the products that an advertiser wants to sell (e.g., a soccer blog for soccer equipment). Search engines also provide sites for advertising related to particular search queries.


So the internet is bad because it provides competition to advertising in newspapers. Great job FTC.




Email tax
By Ammohunt on 6/4/2010 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Whats next taxing email to save the post office?




RE: Email tax
By Breathless on 6/4/2010 2:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
YES, they wanted to do that as well.


Subsidize
By btc909 on 6/4/2010 5:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
The government subsidizes the farmers, why not subsidize the newspapers nobody reads in large numbers anymore. Newspapers are mostly ads these days imagine what a subsidize newspaper will look like.




RE: Subsidize
By rwpritchett on 6/5/2010 9:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
Farmers are subsidized for different reasons. Farmers are subsidized to stabilize the food supply. It helps prevent over-production of some crops during good times and helps farmers get by when crop yields are low. Crop yields can fluctuate from year-to-year because of many variables, such as weather, and subsidies attempt to stabilize the market. We do not have a better way to grow food that competes with modern farms so subsidies are not a crutch to help farmers compete in the existing market.

This proposed tax is akin to the idea of taxing email to supplement the postal service. How about taxing Netflix rentals to keep Blockbuster and Hollywood video in business? Let's add a tax to automobiles and hand it over to the struggling horse-and-buggy industry!


OMFG
By poi2 on 6/4/2010 8:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
one day they will try to put a tax on every time you poop..wait and see..




RE: OMFG
By chagrinnin on 6/4/2010 10:28:04 PM , Rating: 2
Government Tax/Turd Code:Chapter12;amendment2b: Any and all turds shall henceforth be taxed according to length and girth. Any and all turds over six,(6), inches long and/or having a girth of over 4.5 inches shall be hand lowered for safety and wiped once with a five dollar bill wipe which shall then be flushed with said turd. Failure to do so will lead to additional fines and/or penalties, up to and including garnishment of wages and/or confiscation of all future turds/monies. Any and all turds shorter than six,(6), inches and/or girth of 4.4 inches or less shall be levied a tax of three one dollar bill wipes; regardless of number of turds; which are to be flushed with said turds to be collected at your local treatment facility by an authorized tax/turd collector. Diarrhea is an exception to this rule and shall be considered a liquid,(see urine/phlegm tax). :P


What?
By svenkesd on 6/4/2010 11:49:30 AM , Rating: 3
Whoever proposed this needs to be fired, they do not understand economics or the role of government.

Sadly, instead this plan will be praised for it's ability to "create jobs" and save an ailing industry.

Why is the law of unintended consequences so hard for some people to understand?




wtf
By Chiisuchianu on 6/4/2010 4:00:41 PM , Rating: 1
This is damn nuts! Let capitalism work! If a type of media is old or failing the market has decided it must go away and embrace new forms! What this current administration has been doing with bailing everyone and everything out is criminal! Banks, Car companies, Pensions!, obsolete media!? When will the madness end! And you know for damn sure they're going to own part of the companies they bailed out just like they did with the others.

These damn liberal socialists are really pissing me off.




RE: wtf
By YashBudini on 6/7/2010 11:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah subsidies to oil companies and no bid contracts for Halliburton make you happy.


Back to the future
By serkol on 6/4/2010 4:15:50 PM , Rating: 3
They should also distribute these money to film manufactures (remember, you loaded it into your cameras?), and to typewriter manufactures. Taxes on cars should go to horse owners.




The FTC Can Blow Me...
By iFX on 6/4/2010 5:31:50 PM , Rating: 3
And so can the White House and Congress if they think I'm paying this. Just the idea that they're talking about it means they are considering it.

Hey morons in our government, you want to KILL a sector (or at a minimum seriously amputate parts of it) then go ahead with this, because people will STOP buying until it's repealed. People like me. I have plenty of gadgets, a nice PC, a nice phone, etc. I could EASILY go 3-5 years without buying ANY electronics, and so could MOST people.

In closing, FTC, go fcvk yourself.




wow...
By Jeff7181 on 6/4/2010 7:24:11 PM , Rating: 1
Socialist America here we come.

This country is going down the shitter, fast.




RE: wow...
By conejo99 on 6/7/2010 2:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we'll see just how powerful the print media is. My guess is that they no longer have the political muscle to push this through themselves, and they no longer have the political influence to make it worth while for their alies to suffer the pain of pushing this through on their behalf.


Do you think......
By HueyD on 6/5/2010 10:27:51 AM , Rating: 3
Do you think they would be trying to save the paper industry if it wasn't unionized?




By jkresh on 6/4/2010 12:46:27 PM , Rating: 2
5% in a federal sales tax over the already high nearly 10% in state sales tax (in NY) is borderline ridiculous. However, there is an issue hear. Print news vs. the internet is not like the horse and buggy vs. the car (as some prior posters said). As it stands now most of the internet news is just linking to and possibly summarizing print, there are some true internet journalists but not many and nobody is really making enough money to hire many. It is probable that if print fails and then the online sources cannot copy from print anymore a new market for online journalism will develop over time but it will likely leave a gap where vetted information is less available then it currently is. Having real access to news that is as unbiased and accurate as possible is important (and yes a lot of current "news" sources in print/TV/web do not fit that) and if print is lost without a legitimate replacement in place we would be worse off as a nation.




How idiotic can you get.
By aguilpa1 on 6/4/2010 1:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
Let us tax all removable media to save 5.25" and 3.5" floppy discs from disappearing also. These groups don't deserve one cent of my tax dollar.




Who Is John Alt-key?
By morphologia on 6/4/2010 3:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't something similar happen in Atlas Shrugged?

BTW, sorry for the bad title pun. It's all I could think of... :P




Wtf?
By metaltoiletry on 6/4/2010 8:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
Fuck printed media.

With all the government's "green" talk, I'm surprised they aren't all for printed media going bye bye.




This tax would work only if...
By wardww on 6/5/2010 2:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
While this idea sounds like a very leftist concept, not that that is bad in itself, I would only accept it if ALL news and information organizations were NOT allowed to install paywalls on their sites in any form whatsoever.
Think, how many devices per year that fall into this category would the average person buy and thus pay the tax on? Now compare that with the amount you would pay to those news organizations you currently read regularly (that will install paywalls in the near future). I think in the end, the average user would actually pay less for the information.




Thank God
By Setsunayaki on 6/6/2010 12:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
...that the approval rating of the people in power for this term is very very low to the point of anger, threatening and hostilities.

The majority disapprove of it all and a lot of people are now saying that anyone practical who has had no political experience or exposure has more support than anyone currently in power.

No one will stand and let a 5% tax occur...I can see enough protestors simply getting pissed and heading to washington or causing problems. Also, companies won't allow it either, specially if it means cutting into profits by people refusing to buy due to taxation...

While many companies love to circumvent paying taxes by starting non-profit organizations and funneling their profits into them under their own name to prevent paying any taxes...a 5% increase in this economy will have people thinking twice about buying any electronic....or if they do..

then going the long term...and losing faith in electronics altogether.

I know plenty of people who switch from Windows and MACs to Linux simply because they did not want to keep paying money for new software versions. That alone is how I have come to know many people with Linux in my own neighborhood.

The same is true about consoles. Many people did not buy PS3s and 360s originally due to their high cost for games and the base system itself. Add a tax on top of it and that will hurt point of sales like you wouldn't believe...Imagine paying sales tax + electronic tax and it amounting to 12% (where I live) and around 17 - 18% in New York...Sorry, but no one is going to buy and if they do, it wont be enough for the industry to retain itself for long.




Buggy Whips
By Jalek on 6/6/2010 5:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
It's about time the government started taxing all these newfangled things. We who made buggy whips used to have brisk trade, then all these vehicles without horses started gaining popularity and business suffered. The government even encouraged use of these horseless carriages and built roadway systems, while we waited for customers.

There are some blacksmiths that will be glad to hear of this as well, not to mention the Pony Express attendants that have been without work even longer.




By rdhood on 6/7/2010 9:44:21 AM , Rating: 2
Did we tax light bulbs to keep candle and oil-lamp manufacturers in business? Did we tax cars to keep horse farms in business? Did we tax airplanes to keep hot air balloon manufacturers in business? The abacus manufacturers wanted a tax on the slide rules, and the slide rules wanted a tax on the hand held calculators.

This reminds me of Ayn Rand's "Anthem"

The FTC needs to keep their noses out of this.




hope
By shin0bi272 on 6/7/2010 12:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hey all you lefties this is the CHANGE you voted for. HOPE you enjoy it cause you are also on the chopping block!




Sad
By cgadragon on 6/7/2010 7:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
For a review of what citizenship should be...and the right to vote...read Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers. THE BOOK, NOT THE MOVIE!

For a review of how wrong some of these taxes & bailouts are: Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

These should be required reading for any politcally minded individual, if not everyone!




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki