backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Screwballl.. on Oct 29 at 2:53 PM

Congress and the House decided once more to not tax the Internet!

The U.S. Congress and Senate once again agreed to a bipartisan resolution that extends the Internet tax moratorium.

The highly debated issue saw strong support for keeping the Internet tax free from both those in the industry and from grass roots movements.  ISPs strongly opposed any sort of taxation as it would hurt their revenues by driving away customers.  Users, who joined movements such as the "Don't Tax Our Web Coalition," did not want to be taxed either, as taxation would likely mean higher service charges.

A tax moratorium was originally instituted in 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act.  It was extended twice already, in 2001 and 2004, but has not been permanently passed into law.

The house and senate disagreed on the exact length to ban taxation.  The House passed a resolution calling for a four year ban.  The Senate wanted a seven year ban.  Both legislative bodies saw strong bipartisan support for some kind of ban, though.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) was enthusiastic about the tax moratorium.  He elaborated:

"The Internet has provided a powerful economic boost to our nation,and has become an important everyday tool for millions of Americans.  By keeping Internet access tax-free and affordable,Congress can encourage Internet use for distance learning,telemedicine, commerce and other important services."

Sadly, the internet is not entirely tax free.  The IRS is pushing a proposal as part of this year's budget proposal to track user income made on sites such as eBay.  They plan to use this information to adjust people's income accordingly.

The proposal for extension of the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act will now go to a panel composed of House and Senate members which will iron out the differences between the House and Senate's passed proposals and submit a single proposal to the President.

Should the Internet be tax free?  The answer according to the public seems to be overwhelming yes. However, your income from private Internet sales soon will be taxable.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Awesome
By EglsFly on 10/26/2007 8:15:22 PM , Rating: 2
Being able to edit your post if you made a mistake would be fine, but then it wouldn't prevent someone from editing their take on a subject, which kinda kills the whole rating system idea.

If you are really concerned about your grammar, I'm pretty sure the idea of the preview button is to proof read your message before posting it.


RE: Awesome
By wordsworm on 10/26/2007 9:42:24 PM , Rating: 2
Also, if someone says something stupid, they can't retract it. I think that's a good thing. I think people who have foot-in-mouth disease shouldn't be able to hide when they realize how stupid what they just said was. I'm not referring to the bad grammar guy... that's not a big deal. I mean saying something that is obviously factually wrong.


RE: Awesome
By mindless1 on 10/29/2007 12:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Your line of thinking is exactly what's wrong with the present system. We should be concerned about removing factually incorrect content or allowing people to edit out what they no longer wish to convey.

Otherwise it just becomes a ridiculous waste of time while Joe Ego tries to correct what could have already been corrected by the original poster. It's an unnecessary distraction from the content and wastes everyone's time all because you want to make people look stupid? That IS stupid, and it will cause others to devalue your opinions.

There's a difference between hiding something and having a second thought. I'll bet you have a few thoughts you hide too, or show pause before expressing them. It means you are merely less bold than others about expressing an opinion. Even the smartest people on earth can't blurt out the first thing that comes to mind and always be right, but it happens on the 'net because it's impersonal, not all people are psychologically wired the same way, many don't try to attain some status from their net identity and just don't feel being called or implied stupid by a stranger, matters.

In summary, on the one hand we have your way which is to waste time and belittle people, then there is the other alternative which is the way it is with any serious work given peer review - that the document is edited first. I don't expect you to understand why claiming people are stupid or trying to belittle them is not constructive, but even if you feel they were stupid and or wrong, it would be better to allow them to correct their own mistake instead of placing that burden on others.

If we all went around the earth correcting supposed "stupid" people, where would it end? Let them clean up their own mess, including editing a post.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles
IRS Wants to Tax Online Sales
May 8, 2007, 9:30 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki