4 ms·

> Which is not a premise we should automatically accept without question or criticism. Yes, but it's a different question. If it makes sense to reduce the tax

> Which is not a premise we should automatically accept without question or criticism. Yes, but it's a different question. If it makes sense to reduce the tax revenue you can generally lower taxes for all products. I'm concerned with the distribution of where taxes need to be put, not the amount. > This didn't reduce taxes on the Internet; it makes a statement that new taxes will not be added to the Internet. I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the EU services (including internet access) are generally taxed with a VAT, just like every other product (excluding those with exceptions). > Also worth noting that the economy is not a static set of transactions where taxes can be raised and lowered in proportion to keep tax revenue static. There certainly are large fluctuations, but in the long term states try to balance expenditures and (tax-)income. When the scope of what the state does grows usually new taxes get introduced or taxes get raised. > And that shouldn't automatically result in an effort to start taxing the new thing. I say exactly the opposite: you can use taxing to make people buy more of something (some new tech you want to push) or less (e.g. cigarettes).

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> If it makes sense to reduce the tax revenue you can generally lower taxes for all products. This isn't about reducing tax revenue; this is about not increasing it, and specifically about not creating a new tax. If tax revenue has gone down in some other area, the presumption should not automatically be to raise taxes elsewhere to compensate. > I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the EU services (including internet access) are generally taxed with a VAT, just like every other product Taxes in the US aren't nearly that uniform. Goods and services are not taxed universally at the federal level; many such goods and services have one-off special-case taxes. For instance, phone service has several taxes. Internet service, however, does not. This bill is a statement against adding new special-case taxes for the Internet, and against adding new taxes for goods and services purchased through the Internet specifically because of their method of purchase. Imposing any kind of universal sales tax would be an entirely separate question. > I say exactly the opposite: you can use taxing to make people buy more of something (some new tech you want to push) or less (e.g. cigarettes). The US has various such subsidies and excise taxes (the latter of which I already mentioned). But this isn't an instance of that; this is simply choosing not to create a new tax on the Internet.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I say exactly the opposite: you can use taxing to make people buy more of something (some new tech you want to push) or less (e.g. cigarettes). This is assuming that substitution effects invariably or above sufficient thresholds dominate over income effects, which in the case of addiction is a dubious proposition.
- sokoloff 11y ago
  In the case of cigarettes, making them prohibitively expensive for teens will inevitably curb consumption over the coming decades, even if no adult addict quits because of the tax increase. Tax incentives on the other side absolutely work as well. I have a LEAF parked outside instead of my old Mercedes diesel precisely because the feds and state combined to give me $10K in gov't cheese to facilitate the purchase. Sure, I wanted it, but paying $20K was a lot easier to justify and I wouldn't have bought it for the "full" $30K.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> If it makes sense to reduce the tax revenue you can generally lower taxes for all products. This isn't about reducing tax revenue; this is about not increasing it, and specifically about not creating a new tax. If tax revenue has gone down in some other area, the presumption should not automatically be to raise taxes elsewhere to compensate. > I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in the EU services (including internet access) are generally taxed with a VAT, just like every other product Taxes in the US aren't nearly that uniform. Goods and services are not taxed universally at the federal level; many such goods and services have one-off special-case taxes. For instance, phone service has several taxes. Internet service, however, does not. This bill is a statement against adding new special-case taxes for the Internet, and against adding new taxes for goods and services purchased through the Internet specifically because of their method of purchase. Imposing any kind of universal sales tax would be an entirely separate question. > I say exactly the opposite: you can use taxing to make people buy more of something (some new tech you want to push) or less (e.g. cigarettes). The US has various such subsidies and excise taxes (the latter of which I already mentioned). But this isn't an instance of that; this is simply choosing not to create a new tax on the Internet.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

I say exactly the opposite: you can use taxing to make people buy more of something (some new tech you want to push) or less (e.g. cigarettes). This is assuming that substitution effects invariably or above sufficient thresholds dominate over income effects, which in the case of addiction is a dubious proposition.

sokoloff 11y ago
In the case of cigarettes, making them prohibitively expensive for teens will inevitably curb consumption over the coming decades, even if no adult addict quits because of the tax increase. Tax incentives on the other side absolutely work as well. I have a LEAF parked outside instead of my old Mercedes diesel precisely because the feds and state combined to give me $10K in gov't cheese to facilitate the purchase. Sure, I wanted it, but paying $20K was a lot easier to justify and I wouldn't have bought it for the "full" $30K.