Comments on: Politicians weigh renewal of Net access tax ban

State governments say they want to be able to levy new taxes on access and oppose an unfettered extension of the federal ban that expires this fall.

[j_magnus]

Another Tax?

For crying out loud, the last thing we need is another stupid tax! The idea of getting rid of the ban is bad news for two reasons: First, how exactly are they going to determine the tax rate? Will it be based on tracking or just a general flat tax fee? Second, a tax will only slow down development of Wi-fi and other internet related fields; as it is, the U.S. lags behind other countries when it comes to wireless internet technology. That's why I say that lifting the ban on the tax is a bad idea.

[ronwagn]

Freedom of communication is vital.

Government has too many taxes on communication lines now. They should all be removed. Their amount is not great, but they stifle free expression. Books and periodicals in paper or the internet form should be tax free. Internet access also.

Free and universal internet , sponsored by private industry, is a vital goal. The internet is the freest form of communication aside from talk. Let's keep it that way.

Ron

[billcinfla]

The real problem

Doesn`t anyone hear it. We so desparately need one tax in this country ... a national sales tax to go along with a local. A nat sales tax insures everyone pays including illegals. The rich pay more because they spend more. The best part is the government has only one way with which to raise your taxes. In the mind boggling system we are in no American can truly tell me what they paid in taxes last year, gas, electric, phone ... and on and on.

[Wiz Wildstar]

What are they thinking?

Should our government "representatives" allow taxing, in any manner, they will have, in effect, destroyed the internet. It is a well known fact that if you want anything even remotely technical, totally screwed up, all you have to do is involve local state and county governments. Imagine the total chaos of thousands of these all trying to track, filter and maintain a database of owed and perceived taxes. Remember, these are the same people who couldn't even get a hundred trucks of ice from Georgia to New Orleans after the hurricane!
Local governments are like a giant nest of baby birds all screaming and squawking as they fight for scraps of food. Since they generally do not have an IT staff that is even qualified enough to maintain a local website, they will probably end up hiring an outside IT service, which WE as taxpayers will also get to pay for. The ramifications are unlimited, and none of them are good for business or the private sector. It's just another attempt by the government to tax any, and everything they see.

[Sokr8teze]

The Function of Gov't

The basic function of any gov't is to protect it's citizenry from fraud and force, including fraud and force that it generates.
The gov't Fraud: "We don't have enough money to fund our projects!"
Answer: No, you don't...It's not YOUR money,it's the PEOPLE's money.
The gov't Force: Try not paying your taxes and experience the practical application.

Personally,I'd rather enjoy the practical application cited in "a New Revolution".

Now, picture in your mind a job where you had to vote NOT to get an annual raise. What would you do to keep that gig?

[joeyB2k7]

april 07 record revenue

They are receiving more from us now than ever. It's not about money it's about power and control.

[alflanagan]

Constitutional?

Isn't taxing newspapers unconstitutional? And didn't the Supreme Court grant the internet the same free-speech status as newspapers? I'm not sure state taxes would be allowed by the courts.

[libill]

The US Constitution is quaint & irrelavent, right?

The American people have been quietly enduring multiple instances of taxation for years despite being unconstitutional.

[ISolomon]

Get the Money from Bush's buddies.

States do need more revenue. Why doesn't the Congress repeal most of the insane Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and divide that revenue among the states by population?
The states wouldn't have to raise taxes as much as they would have to do without this revenue, and the only people who will be hurt are multi-millionaires.

[sigzero]

Wow...

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Stop
spouting the "tax cuts for the wealthy" crap until you understand
what the wealthy actually DO for our freaking economy.

[JGK55]

They don't need more money

Are you really that naive. The government doesn't need more
money they need to quit spending what they have on bull ****
projects designed solely to get them reelected. If they got rid of all
the pork in the federal budget now none of us would have to pay
income tax or most of their stupid other taxes. The responsibility
for taking care of the people in general was supposed to be in the
hands of the states and the federal government was to make sure
they did it (ie. oversight). Now that the feds have taken control of
all the money who is overseeing them?

[cao_black]

You're Joking...Right?

You're joking...right! Remember the nine most dangerous words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help!" (Ronald Reagan)

Tax revenues are at an all-time high and still they don't have enough money. THEY NEVER WILL...NOT MATTER WHAT!

"So far this year, tax revenues total $1.505 trillion, an increase of 11.2 percent over the same period last year. That figure includes $383.6 billion collected in April, the largest monthly tax collection on record." (Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer)

That's right, $1,505,000,000,000 so far, and the (fiscal) year isn't over for a couple more months. There are 300,000,000 million Americans...you do the math.

We are better off (much better) having the money in the hands of the American people where they can spend, save and invest it than giving it to politicians to redistribute by population as you propose. Politicians always spend more than they get.

[Revolutn]

Only 1 candidate will protect the Net in 08

If you want to keep the internet free of regulation and taxes at a national level, there is only ONE candidate running for the White House in 2008 who is already ON THE RECORD and has a proven voting track record of voting against ANY bill for net regulation or taxes.

His name is Ron Paul, consider supporting him if you want the internet to remain unregulated.

Hillary won't protect the net.
O'Bama won't
McCain won't
Giuliani won't

ronpaul2008 com

And I know the ban on net taxes will expire before the 2008 elections, but if the conartists currently in control ram taxes or regulations through now, it's still only Ron Paul who would repeal them once he were to get into office.

Later,
Rev

Infowars because there IS a war on for your mind

[libill]

yeah, yeah yeah

World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars and the alien amnesty in 1987 was supposed to be the last. With those promises and a few dollars I can ride the NY subway.

Ron Paul is an isolationist nutcase and despite having some good ideas will never be president.

NONE of the pol's can be trusted and because of that a third party is vital. I just hope his absurdity does not harm the 3rd party concept, a concept whose time has come.

[jdbwar07]

Ron Paul is against net neutrality

Ron Paul may protect the internet from the government, but not from corporate interests taking it over. He's against net neutrality, and wants to privatize everything. He believes everything will be perfect and wonderful if we just turn everything over to large corporations. Frankly, with things happening over the last few years like Enron, lobbyist and corruption scandals, and the actions of companies like Halliburton, I'm not too convinced.

And to be honest, while Ron Paul seems like a very honest man who believes what he says, he doesn't seem very knowledgeable about current issues. He's not stupid in any way, but he seems kind of detached (if that's the word). For example he's against net neutrality but admits he doesn't know what it's really about. Before he was on the Daily Show and Colbert report, he says he's never heard of them before (it was kind funny when he said to Colbert that he was "an authentic conservative"). He didn't know what YouTube was either. I'm NOT a fan of admiring candidates for their knowledge of popular culture or the like, but I since all the other candidates are using this it might seem a little troubling in a way.

[samwise_gamgees]

How about a tax on tax?

Since some of our leaders and yes I'm looking at you california seem to want to make an easy buck off the people why not just tax all of the taxes we are currently paying?
Bet a lot of money could be made that way and then the real issue on thier minds can be addressed,which is "what do we politicians have served today for our catered lunches".
I for one am sick of paying taxes for just about everything i buy or pay for including,but not limited to the following - fast food,soda,phone services,cable,all non-food purchases.
So it has been nice to be able to go on line and not worry about more taxes,but if my home state has it's way i will soon be paying a tax to close my eyes and sleep - oh wait i think that became a law yesterday?

[Giselle411]

YouTube video on Net Taxes

Watch the video here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ts8Tikq9Czk.

[hpeeler]

Who benefits most?

Who benefits most from a non-taxed Internet?
Spammers.
If they had to pay a per-email tax would we have fewer spammers?
I host a few forums and probably spend an above average time on the internet. I probably send an above average number of emails. If I had to pay a little to end up with no spammers I think it would be worth it.
Let there be a reasonable tax for those who send over x many emails per month. Tax the spammers. Hit those who spam and avoid paying the tax with tax evasion.

Herschel