17 ms·
Internet Access Is Finally Permanently Tax Free in the U.S.
- bydo 11y agoOr rather, will be, by 2020. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/congress-passes-permanent-ban-on-internet-access-taxes/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/congress-passes-p...
- zingermc 11y agoI imagine prices will stay the same and the ISPs will just eat up what we used to pay in tax.
- vonmoltke 11y agoThey would have to raise advertised prices in order to do that, since those prices are pre-tax.
- lost_name 11y agoThe first two lines of the article are that you currently don't pay any, and with something that recently passed you'll never have to worry about it.
- tssva 11y agoThere is nothing to eat up. You don't pay taxes on Internet access now. Internet access taxes have been banned through a series of time limited bills since 1998. Unlike previous bills the ban in this bill doesn't have an expiration date.
- MisterBastahrd 11y agoWe haven't BEEN taxed. They use taxes & fees as a line item to obscure the fact that they've been charging users above and beyond their agreed monthly payment for service.
- sliverstorm 11y agoFirst line of article: Here’s some good news: Right now most Americans pay $0 in taxes to connect to the Internet.
- wyldfire 11y ago...here in the USA
- matt_wulfeck 11y agothis is important. The billing style of large ISPs is set up to confuse consumers into thinking parts of their bill are actually just taxes when in fact they are fees. This gimmick needs to stop. I once argued with AT&T when they raised my bill by issuing a fee (which violated the contract and meant I wasn't responsible for an ETF if I canceled). The CSR was convinced it was a tax, their manager also convinced it was a tax that they had nothing to do with. I kept kept saying over and over that private companies cannot levy a tax. I swear nobody understood this. This speaks to how successful these large companies have been at confusing everyone with their billing practices.
- hosh 11y agoDoes that mean there is a case for a class-action lawsuit?
- matt_wulfeck 11y agoOddly enough I canceled with Sprint for the same reason (they raised the price of what we contractually agreed I would pay). I called and had no problem getting my contract cancelled and going month to month. Years later I get a check in the mail for $200 from a class-action law suit related to this Sprint fee. Always read the contract. They say specifically they reserve the right to raise the cost of the bill, but if they do they provide some amount of days for you to cancel the agreement.
- slowmovintarget 11y agoMost contracts nowadays contain an agreement to binding arbitration with a clause that restricts you from joining such a class. The courts are essentially unavailable to consumers for anything where you sign an agreement these days. For example, take a look at your NetFlix agreement... or Verizon.
- rpgmaker 11y agoDid you end up suing them?
- 11y ago
- legulere 11y agoIf we want our countries to have the same tax revenue, then every time we reduce the tax on something we also need to rise the tax on something else. So the taxes you will save will be paid by someone (most likely yourself) somewhere else. So making something tax free/reduce taxes is more like a subsidy. By reducing taxes on basic amenities like food you're subsidizing the poor, as more of their money will be spent on basic things. When reducing taxes on something else, then you're essentially subsidizing that thing. It makes sense to subsidize internet access if you want to temporarily give a boost in adoption. But if you make that tax free status perpetual then you're saying that this is more important than everything else that doesn't get the tax free status.
- Guvante 11y agoInternet access has become a humanitarian right. Saying it is less important than a different tax subsidy would be interesting given most tax subsidies impact things of far less importance.
- jeremysmyth 11y agoPermanently? That suggests a law that can't be repealed, amended, or otherwise modified, when in fact it's just had its expiration date removed. This law is no different to any other tax law, and is therefore subject to the usual whimsy of Congress. Just this time it doesn't expire automatically.
- danjoc 11y ago>Permanently? That suggests My spouse has a permanent residency card in the USA. It has an expiration date of 10 years. Perhaps you could call the immigration office and explain the meaning of the word to them as well? :)
- Symbiote 11y agoMy passport has an expiry date, but my citizenship doesn't expire.
- danjoc 11y agoIt is not a misdemeanor to be caught without your unexpired passport, citizen. https://www.us-immigration.com/blog/dont-let-that-green-card-expiration-date-sneak-up-on-you https://www.us-immigration.com/blog/dont-let-that-green-card...
- muddi900 11y agoNot only that, they can reject the renewal application for the green card. They rarely do, but they can.
- Symbiote 11y agoThat's odd. How do you prove you are a citizen to a police officer who thinks you're a green card holder? I assume American citizens don't have to carry papers. It's also mad that it takes 6 months to renew. It takes 3 weeks to renew my British passport, less if you pay extra.
- nemothekid 11y ago>pay more taxes for goods and services just because they’re bought online. Not sure about this one, does this only apply to Federal Taxes? I would still have to pay CA tax when buying from Amazon right?
- tyingq 11y agoThis bill doesn't change anything about local sales tax, on internet purchases, other than prohibiting something punative...like where buying something over the internet would incur a tax HIGHER than buying it locally. There is a separate fight going on around local taxes for items bought on the internet. At the moment, an online business is able to charge sales tax only for sales that are shipped to a state that it has a presence in. Amazon, being what it is, has a presence in every US state...so they tack on the appropriate sales tax for wherever you live. And, Amazon is lobbying for legislation that would push every online retailer to do the same, even if they don't have a presence in the shipping destination state. Edit: It's pretty complex: http://blog.taxjar.com/charging-sales-tax-rates/ http://blog.taxjar.com/charging-sales-tax-rates/
- mejari 11y agoHe's writing this to citizens of Oregon, which doesn't have a sales tax. Other states would still have the "pay sales tax on internet purchases" thing that they theoretically already have that no one pays attention to.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y agoI find the concept of "tax free" services interesting as a European. VAT is placed on everything and people are just fine with that. Would not come to my mind to question that concept.
- jsprogrammer 11y agoYou should question all concepts that you consider.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoVAT is universally applied to (most) things, though as I understand it there are still a fair many exceptions and special-cases (e.g. zero-rating). The US has far more one-off taxes on specific random things, like gasoline and phone service. Ostensibly to pay for related items, such as roads and phone subsidies respectively, but sometimes it's just a random tax in a particular area to raise revenue.
- DanBC 11y ago> VAT is placed on everything In England some items are zero rated, (most food, children's clothes, books etc) and other items have lower rates. > and people are just fine with that There's a pretty vigorous campaign to move tampons and pads to the zero rate.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago> In England some items are zero rated, (most food, children's clothes, books etc) and other items have lower rates. That does not exist in the EU any more. Only products that did not have VAT at the time of introduction of the VAT system can retain it. Austria has no VAT free items as an example. > There's a pretty vigorous campaign to move tampons and pads to the zero rate. Pointless campaign because it cannot be done. You cannot remove VAT under EU regulations from an item.
- Symbiote 11y agoIt's a pointless campaign because the tax on a year's worth of tampons is about 75p. Books, most food etc are still zero rated in the UK. It's fairer, VAT is a regressive tax, and this helps a little.
- edwhitesell 11y agoUnless I'm mistaken, it doesn't technically take effect until the President signs it anyway. Sure, it seems like a forgone conclusion, but it's relevant as to when my TWC bill will show up without the "State and Local Taxes" line in it.
- mobilefriendly 11y agoThere are currently no state and local taxes on internet access; those taxes you see are on cable video, which will continue.
- edwhitesell 11y agoI don't have video service, data only.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- brokentone 11y agoI'm slightly confused how the Internet is fundamentally a different type of thing than a utility (I get taxed on my gas bill -- even on "delivery" -- pay to play, not even any of the goods). Or an information service -- I also get taxed on my TV access. Do these lawmakers just find it sexier to say "we kept the Internet free!"
- tyingq 11y agoTaxation of utilities is very fragmented. Each state does what it wants to do, then local municipalities add on top of that. There are states that specifically prohibit counties and cities from taxing residential use of gas and electricity. So, in this case, the Feds got ahead of the states and enforced some uniformity. I find it sexy. Edit: Note that this law has been in place since October of 1998. The "news" is that it no longer has an expiration date. It did previously, and as such, had to be periodically renewed.
- brokentone 11y agoI feel as though this increases fragmentation, not uniformity. I would expect to reduce fragmentation, a bill like this should simply classify Internet as an information exchange or as a utility and enforce no taxation on all of whichever category.
- r0m4n0 11y agoImmediately reminded me of a bill att recently sent me http://i.imgur.com/R2kidgy.jpg http://i.imgur.com/R2kidgy.jpg I didn't return their modem and they are attempting to collect all kinds of fees and taxes on the sale of the modem (the gateway fee is expected, they appear to have applied service taxes to the sale of the gateway). After arguing with customer service and att supervisors and refusing to pay the 20%+ tax/fees (sales tax in my county is 9% and they continue to tell me to discuss with my local county), I am submitting a dispute to their shady collections partner. More effort than the $33.09 they are attempting to collect but it really struck a nerve that I have to assume most suck up and pay... Internet laws still need hardening but good to hear congress is partially listening.
- mappu 11y agoI'm very, very impressed by the way DNT is taken seriously on this site - http://i.imgur.com/LyZeZxo.png http://i.imgur.com/LyZeZxo.png .
- tmaly 11y agoIt was my understanding that both the House and Senate would have to pass the same bill or go to conference and work out differences that would then get voted on by both chambers. Only then could it proceed to the President for signature. I was under the impression that only the Senate passed this permanent ban.
- bmelton 11y agoSo, looking at the sponsors, this bill has pretty broad, bi-partisan support. It's sponsored by a Republican, and as such, will likely clear the house easily, if it hasn't already. Considering the support, and the fact that Obama hasn't threatened to veto it, he probably won't, which makes the bill likely a done deal. That said, the idea that bills are agreed upon by both houses is maybe how it's generally done, but since (at least) the passage of the ACA (and possibly earlier), definitely not how it has to be done.
- pc2g4d 11y agoThe bill in question: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/431/all-info https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/431... "I made sure the permanent ban on taxing Internet access was included in a trade enforcement package that passed this week." I wonder what else was in that "package"?
- gradstudent 11y agoI'm struggling to understand why this is a Good Thing. Internet access is a service like any other and collecting taxes on goods and services is in the public interest. Isn't it? Have I missed something?
- gradstudent 11y agoI don't mind being downvoted but can those doing it please comment? I'd like to understand your perspective. At the moment all I'm getting is "fuck taxes". Which, OK, is a position, but not a tenable one for running any kind of civilised society. Governments need revenue to operate. Why should utilities be exempt from taxation and why is Internet access in particular so important? Why not electricity or water instead and why should these exemptions apply to everyone? I don't get it!
- tyingq 11y agoIt's a culture thing. One of the primary motivators for the revolutionary war was sales taxes on sugar, molasses, tea, etc, from the British Empire. In the early days of the US, there were no sales taxes...for 140+ consecutive years. The first sales taxes were put in place by US states as a way to deal with shrinking revenues during the Great Depression in the 1920's. They started with only taxing goods, not services. In general, services are still taxed much less often than physical goods. For example, most states do not tax the services of doctors, dentists, or attorneys. Then, there are US states that have no state sales tax of any kind at all. This, of course, makes sales tax appear arbitrary to people in states that do have them. Edit: On this: "Why not electricity or water instead and why should these exemptions apply to everyone?" ... my best guess is that the cat was already out of the bag there. It's difficult to roll back something that's already happening in a widespread way. This law regarding taxing internet access has been in place since 1998, before many were using the internet...ahead of any broad taxation on it.
- prodigal_erik 11y agoTaxes can cause undesirable side effects and destroy more value than they capture. Why should we single out goods and services just because they're bought online? To exempt brick & mortar businesses is to artificially prop up business models that the market seems to be declaring obsolete.
- muddi900 11y agoOk the article in question is not clear, but it only applies to Federal Taxes, correct?
- pascal1usa 11y agoGreat. Now let's work on making incomes legal. I'm still getting fined in the name of "income taxes"
- jmspring 11y agoMy ISP is local, and is point to point wireless. Bill is simple and direct. I've got directv and AT&T, AT&T owns both. I'm revisiting my bills now. Taxes are one aspect, but surprisingly the wiggle room in bills, despite "fees" is pretty large. The constant need for negotiation gets a bit old.
- nikanj 11y agoFrom Reddit, I learned that this also means no more tax-funded municipal internet. Apparently this was a planned side effect of the bill, no more pesky broadband utility companies.
- ck2 11y agoand (many) ISPs are pocketing the difference by raising prices to obscene levels.
- exabrial 11y agoNothing is tax free as shown by Obamacare :/ I'm worried about the Republican and Democratic candidates, I don't think anything will be tax free judging by all the crap they're promising